Gawker Financial Worth Arguments & Exhibits

Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
TERRY GENE BOLLEA professionally
known as HULK HOGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 12012447CI-011
HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA, LLC

aka GAWKER MEDIA; GAWKER MEDIA
GROUP, INC. aka GAWKER MEDIA;
GAWKER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC;
GAWKER TECHNOLOGY, LLC; GAWKER
SALES, LLC; NICK DENTON; AJ.
DAULERIO; KATE BENNERT, and
BLOGWIRE HUNGARY SZELLEMI
ALKOTAST HASZNOSITO KFT aka
GAWKER MEDIA,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________ /
PLAINTIFF TERRY BOLLEAS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO FINANCIAL WORTH DISCOVERY AND
RECONSIDERATION OF RULING REGARDING ADDITIONAL
FINANCIAL WORTH DEPOSITIONS: REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff, Terry Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan (Mr. Bollea), pursuant to
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, moves to compel Defendants to comply with the Courts July 20, 2015
Order Regarding Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Financial Worth Discovery and
Depositions, and for Sanctions for failure to comply with said order, and for reconsideration of
the Courts June 29, 2015 ruling regarding additional financial worth depositions. The grounds
upon which this motion is based and the reasons it should be granted are as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
On or about April 8, 2015, Terry Bollea filed a motion to add a claim for punitive
damages entitling him, upon success of the motion, to financial worth discovery of the1
1
* * *ELECTRONIC ALLY FILED 10/09/2015 03:26:05 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
Defendants. Aware of this, on April 22, 2015, Gawker proposed a streamlined discovery process
to which the Court agreed. Ex. I.1 On May 29, 2015, this Court granted Terry Bolleas motion
to add a claim for punitive damages and denied the motion of Gawker Media, LLC (Gawker)
and the two individual defendants (collectively Gawker Defendants) for summary judgment on
that claim. Ex. 2. Accordingly, the Court also granted Mr. Bolleas request for discovery of
Gawker Defendants respective net worths. Ex. 3. After Gawker Defendants failed to produce
relevant and responsive documents, Mr. Bollea moved to compel, and the motion was granted in
part on July 20, 2015, with Gawker Defendants ordered to produce additional documents. Ex. 4;
Ex. 5.
Gawker Defendants, as they have so many times during this litigation, have again
obstructed legitimate discovery and failed to produce responsive documents required under the
Courts July 20, 2015 order. The omitted items include the following:
The Transfer Pricing Study. The Court ordered Gawker Defendants to produce the
governing documents and intercompany agreements between Gawker, Kinja and Gawker Media
Group, Inc. When the Gawker Defendants produced a licensing agreement, it revealed that the
fee used to transfer all of Gawkers profits to Kinja is calculated pursuant to a transfer pricing
study. Gawker Defendants refuse to produce this economic analysis / transfer pricing study that
they performed to determine the license fee that Gawker pays to Kinja, the Hungarian sister
company which purports to own the intellectual property utilized by Gawker to generate its
millions of dollars in annual profits. Pursuant to its license, Gawker pays millions of dollars to
Kinja every year, which substantially affects its net worth. Thus, Mr. Bollea is entitled to
determine how the fee Gawker is paying Kinja is calculated and whether it actually corresponds
to their actual value or is a sham to reduce Gawkers net worth.12
1Unless otherwise noted, exhibits are to the concurrently filed Affidavit of Charles J. Harder.
2
The recent revelation that this transfer pricing study exists should result in sanctions.
This study was requested over and over again in discovery, and Gawker Defendants deliberately
concealed it.
A 2014 discovery request specifically requested transfer pricing studies, and
Gawker responded that no non-privileged documents exist. Gawker Defendants purposely

mischaracterized the document on their privilege log, claiming it was lawyer-client privileged,
by describing it generically as economic analysis, not a transfer pricing study. Ex. 6. Such
gamesmanship should not be permitted and should be severely sanctioned.
In response to the net worth discovery, and after several letters back and forth, Gawker
Defendants still maintain the transfer pricing study is protected by the lawyer-client privilege.
Ex. 7. It is not. The document apparently was transmitted by or contains the name of a law firm
(Mayer Brown). However, it is black-letter law that the lawyer-client privilege extends only to
communications for the purpose of rendering legal advice, and that simply putting a lawyers
name on an economic analysis of the valuation of intellectual property does not render the
communication privileged. The transfer pricing study cannot be routed through a law firm so as
to create a bogus claim of privilege; law firms do not value intellectual property assets, and even
if Mayer Brown did value one for a client, the valuation itself would not be privileged because it
is not legal advice. The Court should order production and sanction Gawker Defendants.
The Trust Documents. In the July 20, 2015 Order, the Court directed Nick Denton
(Denton) and Gawker to produce his irrevocable family trust documents. Ex. 5. This trust
purportedly owns a significant percentage of the stock of Gawker Media Group, Inc. (GMGI).
The Court ordered production of these documents for a very simple reasonDenton owns a
plurality of shares in GMGI which, when added to the shares of GMGI, constitutes a majority.
Denton thus controls the company, and shares that control the company are more valuable3
(known as the control premium).

Denton and Gawker refuse to produce the trust documents, claiming that they dont
possess them. Ex. 7. Florida law is clear that custody, control or possession includes not
only... possession, but... the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand.
Saewitz v. Saewitz, 79 So.3d 831, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Gawker and Denton have the legal
right to obtain a copy of the trust documents, but refuse to do so. Both Mr. Denton and Gawker
can straightforwardly obtain them from their lawyers or from the trust (Dentons family
members).Denton has provided no evidence that he has even tried, let alone cannot obtain, the
documents at his direction if he wished to. The idea that the CEO and plurality shareholder of a
company cannot obtain information about his own familys trust which owns other shares of the
company is not worthy of belief, and constitutes the latest attempt by Gawker Defendants to hide
the truth in this litigation. Gawker Defendants should be compelled to produce the documents.
Sanctions. Gawker Defendants have now forced Mr. Bollea to bring two motions to
compel relating to net worth discovery which should have been turned over months ago, and are
asserting transparently meritless objections. Gawker Defendants should be required to pay Judge
Cases fees for this motion and to pay Mr. Bolleas attorneys fees in the amount of $11,485.
II.
THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY SHOULD BE PRODUCED.

It is undisputed that Kinja, KFT, a Hungarian sister corporation to Gawker Media, LLC
and subsidiary of Gawker Media Group, Inc., licenses intellectual property rights to Gawker
Media, LLC and is paid millions of dollars per year for those rights. If these rights are priced
based on their actual value, similar to an arms-length transaction with any IP licensor, that would
be one thing, but if they are overpriced, as Mr. Bollea strongly suspects, this scheme would
permit Gawker Media, LLC to artificially reduce its net worth.4
The Gawker-Kinja license agreement expressly states that the license fee is based on a
transfer pricing study contained in a document bearing the name of the Mayer Brown law firm.
Ex. A Conf. Aff. C. Harder. Mr. Bollea previously requested this study, and Gawker Media,
LLC responded that no non-privileged documents exist. As part of a large privilege log that
they produced, Gawker Defendants listed the document, but misleadingly described it as an
economic analysis in order to conceal it and prevent its discovery. Ex. 6.
After several meet and confer letters, Gawker Defendants expressly stated that they were
claiming that the transfer pricing studythe valuation of the intellectual property rights that
Gawker Media, LLC licenses from Kinja, KFT and pays millions of dollars foris protected by
the lawyer-client privilege. Ex. 7.
Gawker Defendants position is completely contrary to Florida law. Florida law provides
that a precondition to the assertion of the lawyer-client privilege is the provision of legal advice,
a doctrine that is specifically conceived to prevent what Gawker Defendants are doing here:
cloaking non-legal advice in the privilege by routing it through a law firm. [W]here a lawyer is
engaged to advise a person as to business matters as opposed to legal matters, or when he is
employed to act simply as an agent to perform some non-legal activity for a client the authorities
uniformly hold there is no privilege." Skorman v. Hovnanian, 382 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1980) (emphasis added).
A persuasive federal case holds that this rule applies to law firms providing asset
valuations. In re Asousa Partnership, 2005 WL 3299823 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 17), involved a
discovery request for e-mails concerning an appraisal of a companys assets. The appraisal was
routed through a law firm to create a privilege claim. The Court rejected the privilege claim:
Even assuming communications from Liegel fall within any attorney-client privilege between H
& W and Smithfield, the subject of these e-mails is an appraisal of Pennexx assets by Valuation
Research. While Liegel states that H & W is the party engaging [Valuation Research's]
services, other e-mails make it abundantly clear that this was a ghost-hiring on Smithfield's
behalf to create the appearance of attorney-client privilege over the appraisal, as was H & W's
subsequent receipt and laying of hands upon the report.... Liegel's communication with H &
W is not for the purpose of Smithfield securing legal advice/services, and the privilege does not
attach.
Asousa Partnership is directly on point here. Mayer Brown is a major law firm and is in
the business of providing legal advice, not asset valuations. In addition, even if it did provide an
asset valuation, it would not be protected by the lawyer-client privilege because it would not
constitute legal advice. It is clear that having the transfer pricing analysis originate from
Mayer Brown was a ghost hiring for no other purpose than to create a phony privilege claim.
Gawker Defendants should therefore be compelled to produce all transfer pricing studies.
III.
THE TRUST DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRODUCED.

On July 20, 2015, the Court ordered Gawker Defendants to produce documents
responsive to Mr. Bolleas request for discovery of Dentons irrevocable family trust
documents. Ex. 5. The request on which the Court entered its order compelling production
read as follows: Mr. Bollea is entitled to documents sufficient to show the ownership interests
and voting rights of the trust that owns certain shares of GMGI, as well as the consideration paid
for such shares, the date of creation of the trust, and the date that the shares of GMGI were
deposited into the trust. These documents are necessary to value Dentons ownership interest in
GMGI. Ex. 4.
Importantly, the shares in the trust were originally owned by Mr. Denton and were
transferred by him into the trust, which ostensibly benefits his own close family members.
Ex. B Conf. Aff. C. Harder (Denton Tr.) (Q. And were you the grantor of those shares. A. They
were originally my shares, yes. {id. at 152:14-17); Q. Who were the beneficiaries of the trust.
A. My niece and two nephews. {id. at 153:20-22); Q. Who is the trustee. A. My sister. {id.at
154:6-7)). While Denton denies having any control over the trust, he could not recall any
instance of his sister voting the trusts shares. {Id. at 155:23-156:8.)
Further, despite Dentons denials of control, at least two media articles profiling him,
written by reporters who interviewed him for the articles, have quoted or paraphrased him as
saying that he has majority ownership and control of Gawker through his shares and the shares
controlled by the family trust. Ex. 8 (Lloyd Grove, The Gospel According to Nick Denton- What
Next for the Gawker Founder, The Daily Beast (Dec. 14, 2014): Personally and through a
family trust, Denton says he owns 68 percent of his privately-held, Cayman Islands-registered
company.); Ex. 9 (Allyson Shontell, Gawker Media Generated $45 Million in Net Revenue Last
Year And I t s Raising a $15 Million Round o f Debt, Business Insider (Jan. 28, 2015): Through a
family trust, Denton owns 68% of the company. He says insiders own 90% of Gawker Media.).
Mr. Denton claimed in his deposition that he was misquoted by these two separate reporters in
these two separate publications. This claim is not worthy of beliefit is clear that Denton was
telling reporters he had a controlling interest in the company because the family trust is just a
mechanism by which he does, indeed, hold such control.
Gawker Defendants have flatly disobeyed this Courts order, asserting that neither
Denton nor Gawker Media, LLC has control over trust documents. This argument is based on
an overly-narrow conception of control. Whether documents are within a partys control is
broadly construed and includes whether the party has the right, authority, or practical ability to7
obtain the materials sought on demand. Saewitz, 79 So.3d at 834; see also Costa v. Kerzner
Intern. Resorts, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 468, 47071 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
Gawker Defendants have provided no evidence whatsoever that Denton or Gawker lack
the practical ability to obtain Dentons family trust documents on demand. In fact, Mr. Denton
admitted at his deposition that he could obtain information about the trust. (Q.... Because I
dont have an understanding of when the trust was created or when the... family actually
acquired ownership in the shares through the trust..., we dont have that information. You have
access to that information; is that correct? A. I can get that information, yes.) (Ex. B Conf.
Aff. C. Harder (Denton Tr. at 158:7-15), emphasis added).
There is no doubt that the family trust documents are of crucial relevance to the issue of
Dentons net worth. Denton owns a plurality of the shares in GMGI; if his shares are added to
those purportedly owned by his family, he owns a majority. Thus, the trust documents will show
whether Denton truly controls those shares and whether his GMGI shares are subject to a control
premium and thus worth more.
IV.
A MONETARY SANCTION SHOULD ALSO BE ASSESSED AGAINST

GAWKER DEFENDANTS.
Gawker Defendants are simply obstructing discovery. First, they buried the transfer
pricing study with a misleading designation in a lengthy privilege log. Now, they have made
clear that they are claiming that a study valuing intellectual property assets was somehow legal
advice because it was routed through a law office. Further, Gawker Defendants are claiming
that Gawker and Denton cannot obtain trust documents that they were already ordered to
produce and can clearly obtain if they wished to. Accordingly, Gawker Defendants are engaged
in a transparent effort to prevent legitimate discovery, and as a result, Mr. Bollea has once again
been forced to file a motion to obtain discovery that should have already been produced, in order
to defeat meritless make-work objections. This is the continuation of a three year long pattern
and practice of obstruction of legitimate discovery by Gawker Defendnats. Mr. Bollea therefore
respectfully requests that Gawker Defendants be required to bear the fees of the Special
Discovery Magistrate in this matter, and that Gawker Defendants pay a monetary sanction of
$11,485 to Mr. Bollea to reimburse Mr. Bollea for attorneys fees which would never have been
incurred but for Gawker Defendants obstruction.
V.
ADDITIONAL NET WORTH DEPOSITIONS

On June 29, 2015, the Court denied Mr. Bolleas request to conduct follow-up financial
worth depositions. At that time, the parties were a few days away from commencing the trial which appeared to be the reason for the Courts denial of this request.
Now that the trial has been continued, this timing factor is no longer a concern.
Mr. Bollea discovered a number of significant facts through the discovery ordered on July 20,
2015, and should be permitted brief additional examinations of Gawker Defendants to address
these newly discovered facts, as well as obtain updated financial worth information from
defendants. Gawker Defendants produced some of the most significant documents regarding net
worth after their depositions. Mr. Bollea should be permitted an opportunity to follow-up on
these developments.
VI.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Special Discovery Magistrate should recommend that
Gawker Defendants be ordered to produce all transfer pricing studies relating to the rights fees
paid to Kinja, KFT for intellectual property licenses, and documents sufficient to show the
ownership interests and voting rights of Dentons family trust, as well as the consideration paid
for shares in GMGI, the date of creation of the trust, and the date that the shares were deposited
into the trust. Gawker Defendants should further be sanctioned in the amount of $11,485 and
required to bear the costs of the Special Discovery Magistrate in hearing and determining this
motion. Finally, Mr. Bollea should be permitted to conduct follow-up depositions of Gawker
Media, LLC and Nick Denton, questioning them about any documents produced after the
previous depositions, and any related matters.
Dated: October 9, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kenneth G. Turkel_________________________
Kenneth G. Turkel, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 867233
Shane B. Vogt
BAJO | CUVA | COHEN | TURKEL
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1900
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813)443-2199
Fax: (813) 443-2193
Email: kturkcl@bajocuva.com
Email: svot@baiocuva.com
-andCharles J. Harder, Esq.
PHVNo. 102333
Douglas E. Mirell, Esq.
PHVNo. 109885
Jennifer J. McGrath, Esq.
PHVNo. 114890
HARDER MIRELL & ABRAMS LLP
132 South Rodeo Drive, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2406
Tel: (424) 203-1600
Fax:(424)203-1601
Email: chardcf@hmarirm.com
Email: dmirell@hmafirm.com
Email: jmcarath@hmanrm.com
10
r rED
mj rl jtm
a .tjlt jc
tl<v_yr
n u kjC
c rD
T. rrkli
j jl\lT
jl jlr
j jwlV
vm
I
HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
e-mail via the e-portal system this 9th day of October, 2015 to the following:
Barry A. Cohen, Esquire
Michael W. Gaines, Esquire
The Cohen Law Group
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1950
bcohen@tampalawfirm.com
maaincs@tampalawfirm.com
ihalle@tampalawfinn.com
mwalsh@tampalawnrm.com
Counsel for Heather Clem
Gregg D. Thomas, Esquire

Rachel E. Fugate, Esquire
Thomas & LoCicero PL
601 S. Boulevard
gthonias@tlolawfirtn.com
rlugatc@tlolawfirm.com
kbrown@tlolawfirm.com
abccnc@tlolawfirm.com
Counsel for Gawker Defendants
David R. Houston, Esquire

Law Office of David R. Houston
432 Court Street
Reno, NV 89501
dhouston@houstonatlaw.cotn
krosser@houstonatlaw.com
Seth D. Berlin, Esquire

Paul J. Safier, Esquire
Alia L. Smith, Esquire
Michael D. Sullivan, Esquire
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP
1899 L. Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
sbcrlin@lskslaw.com
psafier@lskslaw.com
asin ith@l sk s1aw.com
msullivan@lskslaw.com
Pro Hac Vice Counselfor
Gawker Defendants
Michael Berry, Esquire

Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLP
1760 Market Street, Suite 1001
Philadelphia, PA 19103
mberry@lskslaw.com
Gawker Defendants
Kirk S. Davis, Esquire
Shawn M. Goodwin, Esquire
Akerman LLP
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
ki rk .davis@akcrman.com
shawn.uoodwin@akerman.com
Co-Counselfor Gawker Defendants
Charles D. Tobin
Holland & Knight LLP
800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20006
charlcs.tobin@hklaw.com
Allison M. Steele
Rahdert, Steele, Reynolds & Driscoll, P.L.
535 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
amnestee@aol.com
asteele@rahdertlaw.com
ncampbell@rahdertlaw.com
Attorneys for Intervenor Times Publishing
Company
Timothy J. Conner
Holland & Knight LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
Jacksonville, FL 32202
timothv.conner@hklaw.com
11
Attorneys for Intervenors, First Look Media,

Inc.,WFTS-TV and WPTV-TV, Scripps Media,
Inc., WFTX-TV, Journal Broadcast Group, Vox
Media, Inc., WFLA-TV, Media General
Operations, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc.,
Buzzfeed and The Associated Press.
/s/Kenneth G. Turkel
Kenneth G. Turkel
12
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM


Plaintiff,
Case No. 12012447CI-011
SALES, LLC; NICK DENTON; A.J.
ALICOTAST HASZNOSITO KFT aka
GAWKER MEDIA,
Defendants.
/
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES J. HARDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CHARLES J. HARDER, Esq. being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
I am a resident of Los Angeles, California over the age of 18 years. I am an
attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California, among other courts.
I am a partner at the law firm Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP, counsel (admittedpro hac vice) for
Plaintiff Terry Gene Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan. The statements made herein
are based on my personal knowledge.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 10/09/2015 03:26:05 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY*
2.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct exceipts from the transcript of
the hearing on April 22, 2015.

3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are true and correct exceipts from the transcript of
the hearing on May 29, 2015.

4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the Courts June 19, 2015 Order.
5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is Plaintiff Terry Bolleas June 22, 2015 Motion to
Compel.
6.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is the Courts July 20,2015 Order
7.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 are true and correct excerpts from defendant Gawker
Media LLCs Privilege Log, produced on March 28, 2014.

8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 are true and correct copies of correspondence
between the parties.

9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a copy of The Gospel According to Nick Denton -
What Next for the Gawker Founder (Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast, Dec. 14,2014).
10.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a copy of Gawker Media Generated $45 Million in
Net Revenue Last Year and I t s Raising a $15 Million Round o f Debt (Allyson Shontell, Business
Insider, Jan. 28,2015).
11.
My partner Jennifer McGrath and my associate Dilan Esper worked on reviewing
the Gawker document production, the meet and confer process, and this motion. Ms. McGrath
worked for at least four hours. Her billing rate is $525. Mr. Esper worked for at least seven
hours. His billing rate is $495. In addition, Shane Vogt, from Bajo Cuva Cohen Turkel, worked
for one hour on this matter, and his regular billing rate is $415. I have worked at least one (1)
hour on this matter. My standard billing rate, and billing rate in this case, is $550 per hour. In2
addition, I expect Mr. Esper will work at least five (5) hours on reviewing the Opposition papers
and preparing the Reply Brief; Mr. Vogt and I will each spend at least one (1) hour on the same;
I will spend one (1) hour to prepare for the hearing on this matter; and Mr. Vogt and I will spent
one (1) hour to attend and present oral argument at the hearing on this matter before the Special
Discovery Magistrate. These rates are consistent with the rates charged for legal seivices of a
comparable nature, performed by lawyers with similar experience, reputation, ability, skill and
expertise. Accordingly, Mr. Bollea has incurred, and reasonably expects to incur, monetary
sanctions in the amount of $11,485, in connection with this matter, to reimburse Mr. Bollea for
the fees incurred.
12.
The amount of time expended on this matter was reasonably necessary to achieve
the results obtained.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Executed this
lay of October, 2015.

CHARLES J. HARDER
2015 by
Sworn to and subscribed before me this __ day of

who is personally known to me or
who has produced
(type of I.D.) as identification (check one).
(Signature)
(Type or Print Name)
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Commission No.:
CALIFORNIA JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT
GOVERNMENT CODE 8202
C ^ e e Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below)

See Statement Below (Lines 1 -6 to be completed only by document signers], not Notary)
Signature of Document Signer No. 1
Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me
/)
County o f ____
on this
7 ^ ~ ~dav of
Date
{ _ /c -h *
Month
, 20 ^
.
Year
' _ ***'** '*j X .

(1) ..-.-I--_____
).
(and (2)__
S. BRADLEY
Commission # 1993706
Notary Public - California
1
Los Angeles County
5
Comm. Expires Nov 8, 2 0 1 6 1
9 y " Wv v v V ^
Name(s) of Signers)
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whfoêppeared before me.
Signature
___________
/Signatu^^df Notary Public

Seal
Place Notary Seal Above
....................................
...
,
1, ,
-------------
OPTIONAL
Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or
fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Docum ent^
Title or Type of Document:
"
/
.
Document Date:
/ 0 / * 9 / / J>
Number of Pages:______Signer(s) Other Than Named A bove:________________________ ____________

2014 National Notary Association www.NationalNotary.org 1-800-US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827)
Item #5910
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 1
* * *ELECTRONICALLY FILED 10/09/2015 03:26:05 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
1
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
TERRY GENE BOLLEA, professionally

Plaintiff,
No. 12-012447-CI-011
vs.
HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA, LLC,
aka GAWKER MEDIA, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------/
HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAMELA CAMPBELL
DATE:
April 22, 2015
TIME:
1:30 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.
PLACE:
Pinellas Count Courthouse

545 First Avenue North
Courtroom C
St. Petersburg, Florida
REPORTED BY:
Susan C. Riesdorph, RPR, CRR

Notary Public, State of
Florida
Pages 1 - 113
Riesdorph Reporting Group, Inc. (813) 222-8963
_____________________________________________________________________ 51
already been placed before Judge Case?
MR. TURKEL:
jurisdictional stuff?
MR. HARDER:
5
6
7
8
9
Did we ever tee up the
No, we did not, because they
went up to the court of appeal with the issue.

THE COURT:
What about the financial issues,
financial net worth issues?

MR. TURKEL:
I'll let Charles speak to that.
I think they've litigated some of those on
10
financial worth.
11
MR. HARDER:
Well, we've done some discovery
12
of financial, but it wasn't in conjunction with
13
punitive damages.
14
15
If I could just ask Ken, because it's a

procedural issue.
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. BERLIN:
18
19
Sure.
I have a suggestion which may be
helpful.
MR. HARDER:
Your Honor, we -- based upon
20
Your Honor's orders, we received financial
21
information up until December 31, 2013, but we
22
were cut off of 2014 and 2015.
23
gotten that.
So we haven't
24
MR. BERLIN:
That's not right.
25
MR. HARDER:
You even redacted out all the
________________________________________________________________52
1
2014 information out of your documents based on
the last order.
MR. BERLIN:
No.
That's actually not right.
Young American Capital -- remember this debt?
Mr. Lester was on the phone.
'14 because you had asked for 2011 through 2013.
We have produced financial data from 2014.
9
10
They redacted out
But let me -- can I make a suggestion which I

think might be helpful?
We're now -- we're apart
approximately two weeks between the week of the

12th of May and the 29th of May, two weeks give or
12
take a couple of days.
13
hey, if we do it later, we might not have time to
14
get all the financial discovery done.
15
would -- and to resolve objections about it.
16
A reasonable concern is,
What I
What I would propose that we do is to do the
17
29th.
18
Mr. Turkel and Mr. Houston to serve the financial
19
discovery that they would like, require us to tell
20
them if this is preempted, here's what we would --
21
you know, if we have any objections, here's what
22
our objections are.
23
there's a -- you know, we have 20 minutes, we can
24
take it up, do this, don't do this.
25
even schedule -- I don't know what other
But why don't we ask Mr. Harder and
At the end of the hearing, if
And we can
_____________________________________________________ 53
1
depositions they want.
depositions for like early June, we can block out
the time so that if the discovery needs to go
forward, we can go forward and we have the stuff
ready to go so that there you have done several
things.
getting the discovery done.
streamlined the process of getting summary
judgment and the motion to amend heard together.
If they want to schedule
One is you've streamlined the process of

Two is you've
10
And you can do that.
11
that would be a reasonable way to go.
12
THE COURT:
It would seem to me that
So in some ways the motion to
13
extend discovery deadline and shorten the response
14
deadlines for limited purpose of financial worth
15
discovery, it sounds to me, Mr. Berlin, that
16
you're suggesting go ahead and serve it now and
17
then we can rule -- the Court can rule on any
18
objections or anything else if I grant the motion
19
to amend to add punitive --
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
1
Ei..:. m e
or." y t..h i no
war. Led La s a y was w'rcr
3
4
probm_v would have fi.ed a notion because we
d i c r . r a v e Lino in rho "ast. two wools :.o dca'
1 ..1:. ....
..d 1.11
11
O.
1 '..'.1
..iT. ..
" " I
7
8
9
10
where we would have beer, asking for more tine.
11
B1..::... wo a s s u r o d :..h, a :. '. a wy c. r s c o o p o r a :.. i r c w : Lr o a c. in
12
or.her wou _d:i't
have m n n e d e a r n o t h e r
or. t h e
13
14
15
16
:his j u s t
17
:.h'
.s wasn't. -- nobody is being surprised today
18
that m i s is our position.
this
way.
.girt?
'We would propose
We acrua__y wrote and
19
20
21
c; ' o 7 p
22
objection.
23
\\!o
oh j p c .
Ar o t " i t 13 wlv--' wo I 1~c n t no
I f th ey baa agreed,
i " od o b o c t i o n s .
Wo w o l . d h a v e
we w o v _ d r ' t n a v e
lust agreed
24
25
--
55
1
MK. B~?.7,TM:
T1hat's correct
3
4
the o-.ite, oecaine if we do tnis the way they say,
when wc a s k Mi ck non;, or.
: no : v i do a 1 1 y : o r h '. 3
r.u _ 've a.'-t-rea nary
8
9
10
hopper: is ne'e qoir.q to onbect to ai_ of it.
ile
11
not coirq to toll us how n..ch money ho has or
12
where it. is.
We're qoir.q to nave to ao a _ot. of
16
request:
going to say to everybody, ropefn.
17
no:, sru,q'. y but., with an air of civil i:.y arc
18
professionalism, i .cr.evj this wan going to nappen.
13
14
15
19
20
21
M-
r--]vy
['('nn
fb1
I -. * I C:
22
these tcinqs are proposed, and they :-:our:d very
23
good :r. concept.
T-ut ~ have never' served
24
25
56
1
w h e r e h e 6 i d no;., horn a r e haw a b o u t e v e r y
s i nq'
2
3
4
w e ' r e qoir.q t o p l a y
him
whan n i s
it
n e e r i q n t wa y,
f o r h '. 3 b a n k a c c o u r.;. s a s o f
-iqaid
n e t wort.;: i s
today
when _ a s k
t h a t . show
and where h i s
stocks
8
9
10
objection?
11
this
12
case
ilii.
in a t's
is
:r.y c o n c e r n .
The h i s t o r y
of
t h e y ' r e go i nq t.o s a y o b j e c t i o n .
sls._,lN:
When we w r o t e t h e
letter
_ yist
13
14
15
16
motion ana it's ;
17
be e a r se
18
Claw i t e r a n d 1 s p e n d a l o t . o f t i m e d e a _ i r : q w i t s , t n e
required,
T have c l i e n t s .
b e f o r e we a i a
One of
m at
t h e o', ier. t. s
is
19
20
21
c r t o~ .0 n v v ' m r o '
22
significant
23
company,
o wn e r
" qaess
of the
t ,o p-^ j o :"i
company - -
T shot'. o s a y .
owrc f
r-. i I
or tne p aren t
And wo con. f a c f e d
24
25
57
1
2
3
4
5
THE COURT:
MR. BERLIN:
THE COURT:
9
10
So let me ask this.

Yes.
Have you all reserved any time on
Judge Case's calendar for like that week of

June 1st?
MR. BERLIN:
11
Not yet.
He has not been coming
12
to all of the depositions.
13
in my judgment, if he were -- if we were going to
14
have a deposition where they were going to come
15
and ask Mr. Denton or Mr. Delaurio about their net
16
worth, I'm not sure we would all need Judge Case
17
for that, but we can talk about that after the
18
hearing and, if so, reserve some time.
19
So -- and personally
We did get an e-mail yesterday from Janice,
20
who is his wife and assistant, saying that he has
21
a number of days before he leaves to go out to
22
Montana.
I don't remember the exact date.
23
MR. HARDER:
17th.
24
MR. BERLIN:
I think it was something like
25
that.
But we should have time -- if we need him.
58
we should have time to do it.
exactly the kind of thing we ought to be
coordinating now.
THE COURT:
MR. BERLIN:
THE COURT:
And I think that's
Yes, because July 6th is on us.

Right.
That's my hesitation of loading
up May 29th.
we can, I'd like to use those days wisely.
can't, we can't.
I have a few days available and, if

If we
But I guess my concern is we're
10
loading up May 29th with too much and there's
11
going to be lots of complaints and everybody is
12
going to whine, I can't get this all done.
13
I'm going to have to say, I'm sorry.
14
you -- tried to give you some days earlier in May
15
to get all this done.
16
MR. BERLIN:
And
I gave
I completely understand what I'm
17
proposing, Your Honor.
18
make this abundantly clear.
19
transcribed by Susan here.
20
asking for the other two weeks what we're getting
21
for that is that we can collapse the inquiry on
22
summary judgment into one hearing and that what
23
we're giving on that is that -- because we have to
24
have some give -- is if there's financial
25
discovery, doing it, getting it ready, teed up,
We understand.
I want to
It's being
And we understand by
________________________________________________________________59
1
and having it ready to go and doing it quickly.
That's -- we made that proposal when we first
wrote to them about this, and we understand.
MR. TURKEL:
There is no if. Judge.
When you
get a claim for punitives, you get net worth
discovery.
The law is extremely clear on that.
THE COURT:
Yes, but there's time frames.
You would have to give them reasonable time
frames.
You want it to be in May.
He's saying if
10
we give up giving it
11
early in May to resolve that, we'll expedite and
12
shorten -- he's agreeing to your -- shortening
13
your response deadline for financial worth
14
discovery.
if we cannot come back
15
MR. BERLIN:
16
adjudicate that.
17
motion that's granted.
18
granted, they won't need the discovery.
19
all we're saying.
20
THE COURT:
If, Your Honor, was to

That assumes that there's a
If the motion is not
That's
But you're sort of waiving it at
21
this point in time if they're going to go ahead
22
and start serving it before the 29th.
23
24
25
60
1
we hri v c t . r . o
t..o r e s o l v e o b j e c t , i o n s
wh
3
4
de
ivor:.h
re q u e s t
si
cj r: a t
We
e f i :la :l c i a _
d is c o v e ry
to
nave
s e r v e oui f i n .
and
w e 'll
t rade
th e
m o tio n
to
th a t
le a v e
fo r
to
t.b.cr
am end
nea'
7
8
9
10
wh.ut t n e y ' r e
11
agreeing to is allowing 1.3 lc s
12
wo i t h . a i s c o v e r y t h a t wou_ci b e r e l e v a r i :
agreeing
to.
And w h a t t h e y ' r e
13
14
15
16
the Court.
17
p r o c c d i.. r a 1 p r o b l err. v; I tin p u t t i nq t h e h e a r i n g
18
That's,
MR. Bi i i f i j l d:
fine.
dmcje,
1 n a t s o l v e s my
just
of ;
s o v; e' r e ( t e a r ,
19
20
21
j c; ; ]-n |
j I"O O : ^riO
22
have t n e o b j e c t i o n s
23
wo h a v e wo s e r v e
serveu --
"lOW pO t
.r: t
any o b j e c t i o n s
in a d v a n c e s o t h a t
t h e y can
24
25
wo1
tnat
61
wo -..her: I : ' o 1 h o s u b s o n r . i . i vc
- o s p o n s o s a n d wo
3
4
qo.
Wo h a v e a".",
motion,
tney get i t .
16
resolve
their. on t h e
17
29th,
18
no t h a t
A__ o f t h e d o c u m e n t s a r e
t.hat
ready
o qo.
ready to prounce.
Yo;j g r a n t
_f v e t don't, g r a n t
t.hc
it,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
bwt. h e ' s
going
2 9t n ,
we r e s o l v e
to have a l l
o n J u n e 1 st. o r 2r. u,
that
t h e n on t r i e
staff
ready-
he';-: g o i n g t o - -
if
19
20
21
22
MR. TURKEL:
I want him to bring them to the
23
hearing on the 29th.
24
Judge?
25
MR. BERLIN:
Is that asking for too much.
In all seriousness,
62
1
2
3
4
Your Honor
THE COURT:
MR. TURKEL:
Judge.
each other.
She and I are peas and carrots.
We're fine.
MR. BERLIN:
We're five minutes away from
Your Honor, the 29th is a
Friday.
week ought to be sufficient.
10
11
She's going to
have to carry all this stuff.
Poor Ms. Fugate.
I think the first couple days of the next
MR. TURKEL:
How about by Tuesday of the next
week, can I put that in the order?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have them on his calendar.

MR. TURKEL:
That does it.
63
1
2
MR. BERLIN:
sense.
3
4
I think that makes a lot more
I can live with this.
MR. HARDER:
Your Honor, I guess my
my
only question. Your Honor --
THE COURT:
MR. BERLIN:
Just a second.
Did you finish?
We were just making sure we have
Mr. Denton's deposition availability, but there's
a few days where his father is having a birthday
in Hungary or --
10
11
THE COURT:
Maybe you can have depositions
over there.
12
MR. TURKEL:
13
Budapest, Judge.
14
It's a beautiful time in
MS. DIETRICK:
I'm not sure what his
15
commitment is, but there are a few days in the
16
first few weeks of June that we can get this done.

MR. BERLIN:
17
We think in the first couple
18
weeks, there are enough dates that we ought to be
19
able to schedule that without a problem.
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. HARDER:
Great.
My only question, Your Honor,
22
was that if all the objections are ruled on on the
23
29th, what do we need Judge Case for?

THE COURT:
24
25
time.
Just in case we don't have enough
Mr. Berlin is suggesting 20 minutes is
________________________________________________________________ 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
enough for all the objections.

MR. HARDER:
I don't know.
It takes us 20 minutes to set a
date.
MR. TURKEL:
It takes us 20 minutes to
introduce ourselves in this case.

MR. BERLIN:
I'm eternally optimistic.
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Let me just say this.
that part is resolved.
Mr. Turkel is going to
10
work on what that order is going to say.
11
going to send it to me pretty promptly.
12
MR. TURKEL:
13
THE COURT:
I think
He's
Yes, Judge.
A couple things.
On the motion
14
for summary judgment, please -- you're going to
15
send me a notebook, right, with all the
16
attachments and your case law?
17
punitive damages, if you have case law that you
18
you're also relying on, if you can send me the
19
case law as well so that I can cite the case law.
20
MR. BERLIN:
Also, on the
We'll send you our binders in
21
the next day or so.
22
between the filing on Monday and coming here
23
today.
24
25
THE COURT:
one binder.
We just didn't get to it
I understand.
I just have this
I was feeling a little lonely for
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 2

Case No. 12012447-CI-011
Plaintiff,
v.
HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA, LLC;
et al.,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD

CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND DENYING GAWKER DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on May 29, 2015 upon Plaintiff Terry Gene
Bolleas, professionally known as Hulk Hogan (Mr. Bollea), Motion for Leave to Amend to
Add Claims for Punitive Damages dated April 3, 2015 (the Plaintiffs Motion); as well as
Defendants Gawker Media, LLCs, Nick Dentons, and A.J. Daulerios (collectively, Gawker
Defendants), Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages, dated May 8, 2015 (the
Gawker Defendants Motion).
The Court reviewed and considered Plaintiffs Motion and exhibits thereto; the Gawker
Defendants Combined Brief on Punitive Damages, dated May 8, 2015; the Gawker Defendants'
Statement of Undisputed Materials Facts on Punitive Damages, dated May 8, 2015, the Affidavit
of Alia L. Smith and exhibits thereto, dated May 8, 2015; Plaintiffs Combined Opposition to
Motion for Summary Judgment on Proposed Claim for Punitive Damages and Reply in Support
of Leave to Add Claim for Punitive Damages, dated May 22, 2015; the Affidavit of Kenneth G.
Turkel and exhibits thereto, dated May 22, 2015; the Reply in Support of the Gawker
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages, dated May 27, 2015. The
Court also considered the Court file, and heard argument of counsel, and is otherwise fully
advised. Accordingly, the Court FINDS:
(1)
Pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes, Mr. Bollea seeks leave of Court to
add claims for punitive damages against Gawker Defendants by interlineation to his First
Amended Complaint.
(2)
Mr. Bollea filed his Motion for Leave to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages on
April 3, 2015. In support, on April 3, 2015, Mr. Bollea filed 42 exhibits, including deposition
testimony, responses to requests for admissions, and other documentary evidence.
(3)
On May 8, 2105, Gawker Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment
on Mr. Bolleas Proposed Claim for Punitive Damages, as well as a Combined Brief on Punitive
Damages and a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts on Punitive Damages.
(4)
Pursuant to Rule 1.190(f), Fla. R. Civ. P., the hearing on Mr. Bolleas Motion for
Leave to Add Claim for Punitive Damages was held more than twenty (20) days after Mr.
Bolleas Motion for Leave to Amend to Assert a claim for Punitive Damages and supporting
evidence were filed and served.
(5)
In order to add a claim for punitive damages, Mr. Bollea must make a
reasonable showing through evidence in the record or proffered that would provide a
reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. See Fla. Stat. 768.72(1).
(6)
On April 3, 2015, Mr. Bollea filed evidence in the record, which this Court has
carefully reviewed, which establishes a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages
against Gawker Defendants.
(7)
Mr. Bollea made a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered, to
establish a reasonable basis upon which a reasonable jury could find clearly and convincingly
that punitive damages are warranted in this case.
It is thereupon, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
(1)
Mr. Bolleas Motion for Leave to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages is
GRANTED.
(2)
Mr. Bollea may re-file his First Amended Complaint containing a claim for
punitive damages through interlineation in the Prayer for Relief.

(3)
No further pleading by Defendants in response to plaintiffs Amended Complaint,
as amended by interlineation, is required, and Gawker Defendants are deemed to have denied
Mr. Bolleas claim for punitive damages.
(4)
The Gawker Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages is
DENIED.
Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 3
1
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
TERRY GENE BOLLEA, professionally
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 12-012447-CI-011
HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA, LLC,

aka GAWKER MEDIA, et a l .,
Defendants.
/
HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAMELA A.M. CAMPBELL
DATE:
May 29, 2015
TIME:
1:30 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.
PLACE:
Pinellas County Courthouse

545 First Avenue North
Courtroom C
BEFORE:
Valerie A. Hance, RPR

Notary Public, State of
Florida at Large
Pages 1 to 131
______________________________________________________________ 113
1
because I don't think there is something that's
that -- we're not that far apart on this.
3
4
But would that mean then you next want to take

up the discovery objections?
THE COURT:
MR. BERLIN:
Yes.
On the discovery -- Your Honor, as
you may remember when we were here last in April, in
an effort to streamline things, I came up with a
suggestion that we would deal with the
we'd get
10
the financial work discovery requests and we would
11
send out our objections.
12
conference, we were served with 334 discovery
13
requests.
In the wake of that court
14
I have to say, I asked both Mr. Davis and
15
Mr. Thomas about this, and they both said that this
16
is unheard of.
17
certainly not the kind of thing that if you were
18
trying to streamline things and get to a fair
19
evaluation of what each of the three publisher
20
defendants was worth you would need to do.
21
It seemed rather striking to me and
And what we tried to do in our objections was
22
to go through and say, look, we understand under
23
Florida law that if punitive damages are authorized
24
to be sought, that we are -- that we are going to
25
have to give over certain information that basically
______________________________________________________________ 114
1
speaks to our financial worth.
just, hey, here's an interrogatory, tell us what
you're worth.
documents to test it.
It's not limited to
They're entitled to get some
But we're in a situation here where the volume
of what's being asked and the volume of the number
of requests asking it and which are duplicative of
one another really is imposing an undue burden.
it's a little frustrating. Your Honor, because we
And
10
proposed a procedure that we thought was designed to
11
streamline things rather than to wait until today
12
when this was ordered and let the discovery be
13
served and then we have to answer.
14
little frustrated that that was met with such
15
voluminous discovery.
16
And that we're a
What we tried to do was to come up with a list
17
of things that we thought really fairly viewed and
18
answered these questions and probably then some.
19
And that appears in our objections starting at the
20
top of page 4.
21
the publisher defendant's actual and estimated net
22
worth.
23
interrogatories, bank statements for the
24
know, the end of each year, going back to the 2011
25
and the current one.
And it lists documents relating to
It includes documents used in responding to

you
Brokerage and investment
115
1
statements, same way, each year and then most recent
one.
already given over a lot of financial statements of
Gawker, but they wanted an updated one, so we were
going to update them and give financial statements
provided the other two defendants have them.
Accounts receivables, cash receipt journals,
documents reflecting liabilities, debts, mortgages,
other obligations on the idea that if you
Financial statements including
and we've
part of
10
your net worth is determined by things that you
11
owed, that's deducing the net worth and they're
12
entitled to know that as well.
13
We give the defendant's ownership interest in
14
Gawker, whether Gawker has been sold to, merged
15
with, or consolidated with any other entity.
16
THE COURT:
Can we just go through the list and
17
everybody make argument and I just make the ruling
18
on one by one?
19
20
MR. BERLIN:
Yeah.
I was going to say these
were the things that we were going to give, so --
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. BERLIN:
Right.
-- I don't know that there is, you
23
know, a dispute about those because we're going to
24
give those.
25
and so forth, and trusts.
And we have given federal tax returns

And then we're going to
116
do interrogatories that the publisher defendant
swear to the authenticity of the documents, that
they have identified the amount of financial worth,
that they identified material assets and
liabilities, and whether the publisher defendant's
maintain their right to bring any action or --
about, you know, recovering any debts.
owes you money, that's part of the net worth, and we
were going to give that information as well.
10
Somebody
And we did this based on looking at Florida law
11
on the subject.
12
deal with the scope of financial worth discovery.
13
And all of the other ones were just substantially
14
more narrow.
15
interrogatories and one request for production.
16
of them involved three interrogatories.
17
involved a request for a three-year period for
18
income tax returns, personal or business profit and
19
loss statements and balance sheets.
20
it.
21
And there is a series of cases that
One of them involved nine

One
One of them
And that was
There has to be a reasonable limit on this.
22
Your Honor, and this just isn't it.
23
the proposal we've outlined here is reasonable.
24
It's a little larger than what we had anticipated we
25
would be doing when we were here in April.
And we think
And I
______________________________________________________________ 117
1
know I said I would do this, if we needed to, by
Tuesday.
I'd ask for a few more days into the next
week to get it done.
reasonable proposal, and I think that it should be
adopted by the Court rather than having to go
6
7
8
9
But I think this is a
through and serving individual objections to what is

essentially 330 documents of a discovery request,
which is really, at this point in the case, busy
work.
10
I mean, I want to try and cut to the chase.
11
We're going to try and move this forward.
12
what I want to do.
13
That's
I think that's where I am on
this.
14
And so I'm not sure what the -- the technical
15
relief is if it's a motion for protective order or
16
if there are objections that you then rule on, but,
17
either way, we would ask for appropriate relief that
18
memorializes that.
19
And I guess I could let the plaintiff speak to
20
that.
21
moment for rebuttal if there is anything that I feel
22
like I need to address.
23
subject, so --
And then if -- you know, just reserve a
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. BERLIN:
I tried to be brief on this
Thank you.
Thanks.
______________________________________________________________ 118
1
THE COURT:
MR. VOGT:
THE COURT:
This is your time, Mr. Vogt.

This is my time.
I get to tell --
So, Mr. Vogt, tell me first why you
don't agree with, yeah, Mr. Berlin's proposal.
MR. VOGT:
Well, first and foremost, he's wrong
on the laws that pertain to discovery in terms of
punitive damages cases.
If I can approach. Your Honor.
THE COURT:
10
MR. VOGT:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. VOGT:
Did you give them a copy?

Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
And this is the Dokes v. Kennedy
13
case.
14
case which is cited in the Tennant case that the
15
Gawker defendants are relying on to object to this
16
discovery.
17
It actually was a follow-up to the Donahue
And it says, "Broad latitude regarding
18
discovery and punitive damages claims has been
19
allowed by this Court."
20
and Tennant case.
21
That was the Donahue case
Several areas of inquiry are permissible;
22
income, cash flow, expenses, anticipated income,
23
expensed diminutions in income, anticipated
24
casualties affecting the assessment of punitive
25
damages.
____________________________________________________________________ 1 1 9
To that list. Judge, then I'm also adding
briefs about bank accounts, depositories, present
and recent ownership of property and its value, of
any interests in various business arrangements.
Interestingly, Your Honor, in this case, the
Court didn't find a problem with them using standard
family law interrogatories, which are incredibly
broad, much more broad than what we've served in
this case.
10
And the Court said that that was
absolutely fine.
11
The reason they did that. Your Honor, was
12
because in the Donahue case -- may I approach?
13
And this actually dismisses with the notion
14
that what we've asked for here is busywork.
15
there is a long quote on the second page of this
16
case. Your Honor.
17
possibly just providing sworn statements to someone
18
and cut off any further aggressive inquiry into the
19
true financial capacity to respond to the issue of
20
punitive damages.
And
It says that -- discussed about
21
And the Court disagreed with that.
22
that aggressive ability to pursue financial
23
information.
24
people have a tendency to overinflate or
25
underinflate their assets and their net worth, even
You get
They said -- they recognized that
____________________________________________________________________ 1 2 0
under oath.
naivete to suggest that a sworn statement of one's
net worth must be accepted as the final word on that
important subject.
hidden assets is of the essence of the discovery
process.
recent income tax return or shown in a recent
financial statement furnished in another situation
when the current litigation was not envisioned is a
And they said, "It is the height of
The search for a forgotten or
The whereabouts of assets disclosed by a
10
very definitely appropriate inquiry as is the
11
bona fides of the recent disposition of assets."
12
This is where --
13
THE COURT:
14
But they're giving you some of the
backup.
15
MR. VOGT:
16
THE COURT:
Pardon me?
They're giving you, though, the
17
backup.
18
broker investment account statements.
19
giving you more than just their view of what their
20
company is worth.
21
They're giving you the bank statements, the
MR. VOGT:
They're
Correct, they have selectively
22
picked and chosen what they wanted to give.
23
requests really don't ask for anything outside the
24
scope of these cases. Your Honor.
25
THE COURT:
Here is my concern.
Our
____________________________________________________________________ 1 2 1
MR. VOGT:
THE COURT:
MR. VOGT:
THE COURT:
And I'll be happy to go into them.

We may be set for a July trial.
Correct.
I appreciate the fact that they
were just getting a ruling a few minutes ago on
punitive damages.
defense is really trying to streamline the process
to get you everything that -- that at least they can
in an expedited basis, so -- because prior to just a
I appreciate the fact that the
10
week or ten days ago, we were all going to trial on
11
July and I still had a standing trial order out
12
there.
13
MR. VOGT:
14
THE COURT:
15
And we understand that. Your Honor.

And so, I guess, for that reason, I
think it's a good compromise for now.
16
And so tell me why it wouldn't be or what
17
additional things that you think you want to get on
18
this expedited schedule that the defense has agreed
19
to.
20
MR. VOGT:
And our response is, it basically
21
ties in with your concerns that there is not much
22
time left.
23
very broad, because if we get responses, we're not
24
going to get a second chance to come back and ask
25
for more information.
So these requests necessarily had to be
122
So if the Court's inclined to grant this, this
request by the defense to initially limit the
inquiries to the issues that are set forth in this
letter, what we would ask is that that not be the
final order, but we have the ability to come back.
And if we see things in bank statements or financial
statements and we didn't get the documents or
information from those, that we -- there is proper
follow-up on, that we have the ability to do that.
10
11
THE COURT:
Thank you.
This was your main presentation.
12
MR. VOGT:
13
THE COURT:
14
All right.
I'm sorry.
I cut it short.
That's okay, Your Honor.

Mr. Berlin, would you agree with
that?
15
MR. BERLIN:
16
THE COURT:
I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to.

So here
I think here
I think
17
you've made an ore tenus motion for protective order
18
to limit it just to your response to these things on
19
this expedited basis that you've agreed to provide.
20
So Mr. Vogt has then said, well, would they
21
then -- if I was going to grant your ore tenus
22
motion for protective order just on these things,
23
would they have an additional -- after they've had
24
the opportunity to go through all of this, would
25
they have an additional opportunity later on to
123
1
further inquire.
MR. BERLIN:
Your Honor, if I could say just
two things.
presented, I actually think are consistent with what
I've just said.
defendants -- involving 16 interrogatories, the
defendant answered six and objected to the other
ten.
One is that the cases that they have
In the Donahue case, the
We're not talking about 334 requests.

And in the other one, it lists bank accounts,
10
depositories.
11
objecting to is if you get our bank accounts, you
12
don't need every deposit slip for every -- you know,
13
be just a bunch of paper.
14
to misstate what the deposit is.
15
account, so -- and the amounts that are there
16
reflect what's what.
17
We've giving this stuff.
What we're
The bank has no incentive

It's on the bank
So I think that -- I think it's consistent with
18
what I was saying.
I generally think that if for
19
some reason -- I mean, remember that the discovery
20
that we're talking about here. Your Honor, is
21
answering one question:
What are you worth, right?
22
And, realistically, if we give over all that
23
stuff, it would be very difficult to imagine that
24
they would not be able to formulate a reasonable
25
answer to that question.
Right?
124
1
T h e y ' v e a l s o now a s k e d f o r d e p o s i t i o n s
o f each
o f t h e p e o p l e on t h a t
them f o r t h e end o f J u n e .
com bination,
But i f
a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n w h a t a r e y o u w o r t h w i t h o u t some
a d d itio n a l piece
th at
Your H onor,
10
A nd,
y o u know,
the
w h i l e t h a t w ould seem v e r y u n l i k e l y .
f o r some r e a s o n t h e y cam e a n d s a i d we c a n ' t
in fo rm atio n ,
th a t's
s u b j e c t and w e 'v e s c h e d u le d
of in fo rm atio n ,
a n d we o b j e c t t o
and th e y want to
I h a v e no o b j e c t i o n
th at th a t's
to
come b a c k t o
th at.
what y o u 'r e h e re
I th in k
for --
11
THE COURT:
R ig h t.
12
MR. BERLIN:
13
THE COURT:
14
So I'm granting defense's ore tenus motion for
--
to re so lv e th a t d is p u te ,
A ll r ig h t .
so - -
Thank you.
15
protective order to limit the discovery to those
16
things that the defense has agreed to provide in the
17
May 22nd, 2015, letter to Mr. Harder.
18
defense is going to provide this information -- was
19
it by next Thursday, the 4th?
20
wanted?
21
22
MR. BERLIN:
the 2nd.
Is that what you
I think we had originally proposed
And if I could look at --
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. BERLIN:
25
And that the
3rd?
If I could look at Ms. Smith and
find out.
125
1
MS. SMITH:
MR. TURKEL: When we cut the deal to do all
3
4
I think, yes.
this today, I thought it was the 2nd.

THE COURT:
But then I think that the defense
asked for a few days.
MR. BERLIN:
I'm asking -- basically, this is
more than we thought it was going to be, and if I
had a couple extra days.
Friday of next week, it's still before the
10
depositions.
If we can do Thursday or
If I can get it done sooner, I will.
11
THE COURT:
5:00 on the 4th, is that good?
12
MS. SMITH:
We'll make it.
13
THE COURT:
Okay.
14
MR. BERLIN:
15
that production, so --
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. BERLIN:
18
I'm sorry.
Yes, I'm sorry as well.
apologize.
19
THE COURT:
20
Thursday.
21
the
22
Ms. Smith is bearing the burden of
So -- all right.
That's June 4th.
MR. BERLIN:
So by 5:00
All right?
And with
5:00 p.m. on the 4th, yes.
23
24
25
126
1
2
MR. BERLIN:
Your Honor, I have one other
question about the punitive damages since Your Honor
has ordered that that go forward.
THE COURT:
MR. BERLIN:
Yes.
My understanding, again, this is
not -- I'm not an expert at this, so perhaps
Mr. Davis can speak to this if I get this wrong, but
my understanding is that under a case called
10
W.R. Grace, that when that -- when punitive damages
11
are issued, that it is the practice in Florida to
12
bifurcate the issue of net worth presentation to the
13
jury.
And I would ask that we do that in this case.
14
THE COURT:
So the first part of the trial is
15
going to go forward.
16
decision on the underlying complaint.
17
that point in time, based on the verdict of the
18
jury, then they'll present the additional
19
information.
20
decision.
The jury will make their

And then at
The same jury will make additional
21
Do you agree with that, Mr. Turkel?
22
MR. TURKEL:
I don't know that it's mandatory
23
to do it that way.
24
bifurcate and you vet out whether it has to happen.
25
Usually they file a motion to
You know, it's, to me, something that we'll
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 4
Filing # 28765014 E-Filed 06/22/2015 01:16:10 PM

Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 120124470-011

GAWKER MEDIA,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF TERRY BOLLEAS
MOTION TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE FINANCIAL WORTH DISCOVERY
AND ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL WORTH DEPOSITIONS
Plaintiff Terry Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan (Bollea), by counsel and
pursuant to Rule 1.380, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for the entry of an order
compelling Defendants, Gawker Media, LLC (Gawker), Nick Denton (Denton) and A.J.
Daulerio (Daulerio) (collectively, Gawker Defendants), to provide a full and complete
disclosure of their net worth and to appear for additional depositions once those disclosures have
been made, and states in support as follows:
On May 29, 2015, Mr. Bollea was granted leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive
damages and, as a result, is entitled to full and complete discovery concerning Gawker
Defendants net worth. Gawker Defendants objected to the scope of the financial worth
discovery that Mr. Bollea originally served. Based on these objections, at the May 29, 2015
hearing, the parties agreed and the Court ordered that Gawker Defendants would provide certain
financial worth discovery to Mr. Bollea, with the caveat that Mr. Bollea would be entitled to seek
additional discovery if Gawker Defendants responses were incomplete. Most notably, Gawker
Defendants were required to provide documents sufficient to show... Gawkers, Dentons and
Daulerios actual and estimated net worth. Mr. Bollea was hopeful that Gawker Defendants
would, as promised, provide discovery sufficient to determine their net worth. Unfortunately,
this has not occurred.
Gawker Defendants instead produced minimal, incomplete documentation, and general,
unsubstantiated testimony regarding their net worth. They produced some tax returns. They
produced some financial statements. They produced some year-end, undetailed account
statements. Gawker Defendants produced as little information as possible while still attempting
to make it appear as if they were complying with the Courts order.
Many of the documents Gawker Defendants produced demonstrate that other relevant
documents exist that were not provided to Mr. Bollea. Additionally, on June 16-17, 2015, Mr.
Bolleas counsel incurred the cost and expense of preparing for and traveling to New York to
take the depositions of Gawker Defendants regarding their net worth. These depositions
confirmed that Gawker Defendants failed to produce numerous documents that are necessary
and relevant to establishing their net worth. Many of these documents are easily accessible by
Gawker Defendants on their computers and other devices.
In particular, Mr. Bollea learned that
the following, discoverable documents exist, which Gawker Defendants failed to produce:
1.
Written valuation(s) of Gawker-affiliated companies: In early 2015, Gawker
explored debt financing through Young America Capital, Inc. (YAC). As part of that
process, Gawker provided, or YAC prepared, a written valuation of Gawker Media
Group, Inc. (GMGI), including its wholly owned assets, Gawker and Kinja, KFT
(Kinja). It is commonplace for such valuations to be prepared during debt financing
efforts. Yet Gawker Defendants failed to produce this written valuation related to its
2
debt financing efforts through YAC, or any other written valuations of Gawker-affiliated
companies. All should be ordered produced.
2.
Written future financial projections: As part of its involvement with YAC,
Gawker provided YAC with various future financial projections for the company.
Gawkers corporate designee, COO and acting CFO Scott Kidder, testified that he
prepared various financial projections during 2014-2015. Mr. Kidder also confirmed that
he maintains copies of these projections on his computer. However, none of these
projections were produced. Mr. Bollea is entitled to all financial projections for GMGI,
Gawker and Kinja prepared during 2014 through 2015.
3.
Financial Information Provided to The Brenner Group: Mr. Denton produced
certain reports from The Brenner Group, which valued certain GMGI stock. Yet GMGI,
Gawker and Kinja provided financial projections and other financial documents and
information to The Brenner Group for use in its valuation. None of those financial
projections, or the other financial information and documents were produced to Mr.
Bollea. Mr. Bollea is entitled to these documents because they can be (and actually were)
used to assist in the valuation of GMGI, Gawker and Kinja.
3.
GMGIs tax returns: None of GMGIs tax returns have been produced. Mr.
Bollea is entitled to these documents to assist in the valuation of defendant Nick Dentons
ownership interest in GMGI, which is his largest asset.
4.
Kinjas and GMGIs bank statements: None of these bank statements have
been produced. Mr. Denton and Mr. Kidder confirmed at their depositions that these
entities have bank accounts. Mr. Bollea is entitled to the statements from these bank
accounts to value Mr. Dentons ownership interest in GMGI, including GMGIs
subsidiaries, Gawker and Kinja, and their assets.
5.
Kinjas tax returns: Kinja is a Hungarian corporation to which Gawker transfers
millions of dollars each year (constituting all or nearly all of Gawkers profits). Kinja
files tax returns in Hungary. However, Kinjas tax returns have not been produced.
These documents are necessary to value Mr. Dentons ownership interest in GMGI,
which owns 100% of Kinja.
6.
Dentons financial information sent to JP Morgan: Mr. Denton recently
obtained a $2 million mortgage on his New York apartment, and used the proceeds for
renovations and other expenditures. However, Mr. Denton failed to produce copies of his
financial information and application to JP Morgan for the $2 million mortgage. Mr.
Bollea is entitled to this documentation, which will include the net worth and financial
information that Mr. Denton himself provided to JP Morgan in connection with his
mortgage.
7.
Dentons National Financial Services accounts: Mr. Denton failed to produce
account statements for his National Financial Services account(s), as listed in his tax
returns, which generated over $4,600 in interest in
alone. Mr. Bollea is entitled to
this documentation to determine the value of Mr. Dentons assets.
8.
Dentons foreign bank account statements: Mr. Denton lists several foreign
bank accounts on his 2012 tax return. However, he failed to produce any bank statements
from any of these accounts.
9.
Governing documents associated with GMGI, Gawker and Kinja: Mr.
Denton and Gawker failed to produce any operating agreements, shareholder agreements,
stock option agreements, buy-back agreements, by-laws and similar agreements or
governing documents associated with GMGI, Gawker and Kinja. These documents are
necessary to value Mr. Dentons stock, as well as to determine whether there is any
control premium associated with it.
10.
Gawker, GMGI, and/or Kinja insurance policies: Mr. Denton and Gawker
failed to produce insurance policies for Gawker, GMGI and/or Kinja providing for key
man insurance, renters insurance, or business loss insurance. These policies are relevant
to determining the value of GMGI and Gawker, as well as their assets and business
operations. Mr. Bollea is entitled to these materials.
11.
Silicon Valley Bank construction loan documents: Gawker failed to produce
documents associated with the recent $8 million construction loan Gawker obtained from
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) to construct its new offices located at 114 Fifth Avenue.
These documents would include, but not be limited to, loan applications, financial
disclosures, promissory notes, loan agreements, guarantees, financial covenants and
conditions, and related materials. Mr. Bollea is entitled to these documents to value
Gawker and GMGI.
12.
Financial disclosures re: 114 Fifth Avenue lease: Gawker, Kinja and/or GMGI
provided financial disclosures to their new landlord in connection with the negotiation
and execution of the new lease for 114 Fifth Avenue. Mr. Bollea is entitled to these
financial disclosures.
13.
Kinj a/Gawker Inter-Company Development Agreement, Royalty Agreement,
and related documents: Mr. Denton and Gawker failed to produce the Inter-Company
Development Agreement between Kinja and Gawker, and any similar agreement(s)
relating to the loaning out of one companys employees to the other company, as well as
the Royalty Agreement between Kinja and Gawker, which provides the basis for Gawker
transferring a large percentage of its profits to Kinja each year. They have also failed to
produce copies of documents sufficient to establish how the royalty payment from
Gawker to Kinja is calculated each year, and the services provided in exchange. Mr.
Bollea is entitled to these agreements and documents to assist in the valuation of Gawker
and GMGI.
14.
Dentons Loans/Investments: Mr. Denton failed to produce any documents
evidencing loans to or investments made by Mr. Denton in GMGI, Gawker, or Kinja.
Mr. Denton testified that such documents exist.
15.
International licensing agreements: The only source of revenue for the Gawker
entities, aside from the revenue generated by Gawker, is from international licensing
agreements. These Licensing Agreements between Kinja and other companies for
international licensing of Gawker content and/or Kinja intellectual property have not
been produced.
16. Monthly financial reports to SVB: Mr. Kidder confirmed at his deposition that
Gawker is required to provide monthly financial reports to SVB, under the terms and
conditions of covenants in the contracts governing Gawkers line of credit and notes.
These monthly financial reports prepared by Mr. Kidder and provided to SVB were not
produced.
17.
Documents associated with a GMGI stock split in 2013: were not produced.
18.
Gawker Stock Option Plan: was not produced.
19.
Capitalization tables: Only one capitalization table or cap table for GMGI
was produced. Mr. Bollea is entitled to cap tables for Gawker, GMGI and Kinja, from
2011 through the present to trace the ownership of the companies.
20.
Board meeting minutes: Mr. Bollea is entitled to all board meeting minutes
reflecting the discussion of Gawker, Kinja or GMGIs financial condition, loans, stock
prices, royalty payments, offers to buy GMGI or any interest therein, debt financing, and
valuations of GMGI, Gawker and/or Kinja during 2014-2015.
21.
Gawker and GMGIs state and local income tax returns: were not produced.
22.
Dentons prenuptial agreement: Mr. Denton did not produce his prenuptial
agreement, including any financial disclosures by Mr. Denton associated with it. Under
New York law, Mr. Denton was required to disclose his net worth in connection with this
agreement. See McKenna v. McKenna, 994 N.Y.S.2d 381, 383 (A.D. 2014). Mr. Bollea
is entitled to these recent disclosures.
23.
Dentons Citibank international account statements: Mr. Denton failed to
produce copies of statements from 2012 to the present for his Citibank international
account, which is listed on Mr. Dentons 2011 tax returns.
24.
Dentons Fidelity investment accounts: Mr. Denton failed to produce
statements from 2012 to the present for all of his Fidelity investment accounts. These
accounts generated over $ 11,000 in interest in a calendar year, and clearly contained
significant amounts of money.
25.
Dentons New York apartment insurance policies: Mr. Denton failed to
produce copies of insurance policies associated with his New York apartment, as well as
a detailed description of, and values for the contents of, the apartment. Although Mr.
Denton testified otherwise during his deposition, his mortgage requires him to maintain
this insurance.
26.
Mr. Dentons 2013 W-2 forms: were not all produced.
27.
Dentons U.S. treasury bonds statements: Mr. Denton did not produce
statements for his account that contained $440,000 in U.S. treasury bonds and other
unspecified securities which he sold in or about 2012, or any documents demonstrating

how this money was used.
28.
Dentons Bank of Scotland account: Mr. Denton failed to produce any
statements during the period 2012 to the present for a Bank of Scotland account about
which he testified at deposition.
29.
Dentons Citigold accounts: Mr. Denton did not produce statements for his three
Citigold accounts in London for the period 2012 to the present. At least one of these
accounts contained more than $100,000.
30.
The transaction details from Mr. Dentons Chase bank account: were
redacted.
31.
Detailed monthly statements for Defendants financial accounts: Mr. Denton,
Mr. Daulerio, Gawker, GMGI and Kinja all failed to produce detailed monthly statements
for all of their financial accounts, including details of all deposits, credits, transfers,
debits, withdrawals and checks. The details on the year-end statements that were
produced are insufficient to determine the Gawker Defendants respective net worth.
32.
Dentons irrevocable family trust documents: Mr. Denton testified that he has
placed an amount of shares that equal (according to the sole cap table produced by
Gawker) over 20% of the total value of GMGI into an irrevocable family trust run by a
member of his immediate family, but over which he claims to have no control. Mr.
Bollea is entitled to documents from which he can ascertain whether, in fact, these shares
can no longer be considered a part of Mr. Dentons net worth. Such documents include
the trust documents, as well as those that clearly identify the grantor, trustees,
beneficiaries and terms of the trust, as well as what shareholder voting rights belong to
the family trust. Mr. Bollea is further entitled to documents that evidence the
consideration originally paid for the shares placed in trust, the date of creation of the
trust, and the date that these shares of GMGI belonging to Mr. Denton were deposited
into the trust.
33.
Statements for Kinjas financial accounts in Hungary: were not produced.
34.
Reports and notes of pitch meetings and meetings held with prospective
purchasers or financiers who sought to buy Gawker or GMGI or a portion thereof:
were not produced. Mr. Denton testified that at least two of these meetings took place,
and the value of GMGI was discussed in at least one of the meetings. These documents
should include, but are not limited to, all documents associated with the meeting held last
year at which an offer was made to purchase GMGI. These documents should also
include, but are not limited to, all documents associated with the presentations YAC
provided to two potential investors in connection with efforts to obtain debt financing
for Gawker. They should also include the presentation itself (i.e., Powerpoint), and any
investor information materials or offering documents. Gawker Defendants also should be
required to provide Mr. Bollea with the names of the potential investors and the Media
Company that made the offer to purchase GMGI last year (which Mr. Denton refused to
disclose during his deposition).
All of this information is discoverable. In Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169, 1170
(Fla. 1979), the Florida Supreme Court quoted with approval the opinion in Donahue v. Hebert,
355 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), on the proper scope of net worth discovery: The
search for forgotten or hidden assets is of the essence of the discovery process. The whereabouts
of assets disclosed by a recent income tax return, or shown on a recent financial statement
furnished in another situation when the current litigation was not envisioned is very definitely
appropriate inquiry as is the bona Tides of the recent disposition of assets. These are routine
inquiries for every knowledgeable trial lawyer in cases in which the financial resources of a party
is a relevant issue. One must be afforded reasonable latitude in double and cross checking a
party's statements about his current net worth. This, of course, can be done by reviewing income
tax returns, recent financial statements, and the myriad of other sources of financial
information.
Mr. Bollea is entitled to information that allows him to determine Gawker Defendants
net worth. In the case of Gawker, that includes projections of future revenue (which could affect
the value of the company), and financial information provided to potential financiers and
professionals engaged to value the company, as well as tax return information. In the case of Mr.
Denton, it includes financial information provided to mortgage lenders, bank account
information, and information regarding the value of the companies in which he holds stock. This
also includes the value of GMGI and its subsidiaries, as Mr. Dentons shares in that company are
by far the most valuable single asset he holds. As such, this especially includes information
regarding the family trust into which Mr. Denton has testified that he has transferred a significant
portion of his main assets - his shares in GMGI.
Mr. Bollea is not required to rely on Gawker
Defendants representations as to what any of these assets are worth (and whether they are in the
possession of the Gawker Defendants)under Tennant and Donahue, he is entitled to test and
verify Gawker Defendants assertions.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel should be granted. Moreover, because
Gawker Defendants failed to produce documents within their possession, custody and control to
which Mr. Bollea is clearly entitled, Gawker Defendants should be required to appear for the
completion of their financial worth depositions once they have provided full and complete
financial worth discovery. Mr. Bollea also respectfully requests that the Court consider ordering
these depositions to take place in Pinellas County, Florida, so that he is not be forced to pay the
cost and expense of traveling to New York again to complete these depositions. Alternatively,
Mr. Bollea respectfully requests the Court consider requiring Gawker Defendants to pay for the
costs associated with travel, including attorney time, incurred in completing these depositions.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Kenneth G. Turkel________________________
Shane B. Vogt
Tel: (813)443-2199
Fax: (813)443-2193
Email: k t u r k c l @ b a i o c u v a . c o m
Email: svogt@baiocuva.com
- and -
Charles J. Harder, Esq.

PHVNo. 102333
PHVNo. 109885
Sarah E. Luppen, Esq.
PHVNo. 113729
PHVNo. 114890
1925 Century Park East, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (424) 203-1600
Fax: (424) 203-1601
Email: charder@hmafinn.eom
Email: dniirell@hmafinn.com
Email: sluppen@hmafirm.com
Email: imcgrath@hmarmn.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
E-Mail via the e-portal system this 22nd day of June, 2015 to the following:
Barry A. Cohen, Esquire
Michael W. Gaines, Esquire
The Cohen Law Group
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1950
bcohcn@tampalawfirm.com
mgaincs@lampalawnrm.com
jha 11c@ta mpa 1awfi nn .com
Gregg D. Thomas, Esquire

Rachel E. Fugate, Esquire
601 S. Boulevard
m w a lsh @ ta m p a la w n rm .co m
ab ccn e@ tlolaw firm .co m
Counsel for Heather Clem
Counsel for Gawker Defendants
David R. Houston, Esquire

Law Office of David R. Houston
432 Court Street
Reno, NV 89501
Seth D. Berlin, Esquire

Paul J. Safier, Esquire
Alia L. Smith, Esquire
Michael D. Sullivan, Esquire
1899 L. Street, NW, Suite 200
sbcr1in@lskslaw.com
psaficr@lskslaw.com
asmith@lskslaw.com
msuHivan@lskslaw.com
Gawker Defendants
d h o u sto n @ h o u sto n atlaw .com

k ro sscr@ h o u sto n a tla w .co m
Michael Berry, Esquire

Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLP
1760 Market Street, Suite 1001
Philadelphia, PA 19103
inbcrrv@lskslaw.com
Pro Hac Vice Counsel for
Gawker Defendants
g th o m a s@ tlo la w firm .co m

rfu gate@ tlolaw firm .com
kbrown@tlolawfirm.com
Kirk S. Davis, Esquire

Shawn M. Goodwin, Esquire
Akerman LLP
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
kirk.davis@akcrman.com
shawn.goodwin@akerman.com
Co-Counselfor Gawker Defendants
/s/ Kenneth G. Turkel
Attorney
10
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 5

Case No. 12012447CI-011
Plaintiff,
vs.
HEATHER CLEM, et al..
Defendants.
/*
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF TERRY BOLLEAS MOTION TO COMPEL

FURTHER FINANCIAL WORTH DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS
This cause came before the Court on June 29, 2015, on Plaintiff Terry Bollea's Motion
to Compel Full and Complete Financial Worth Discovery and Additional Financial Worth
Depositions (the Motion). The Court has reviewed the Court file, reviewed and considered
the Motion and response papers, heard argument of counsel, and is otherwise fully advised.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the portion of the Motion seeking additional
financial worth document discovery is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as
follows:
Request No. 1 (Written valuation(s) of Gawker-affiliated companies):

Request denied. Gawker shall provide written verification that no additional
valuations of the companies exist, except The Brenner Group valuations.
Request No. 2 (Written future financial projections): Request denied.
Request No. 3 (Financial Information Provided to The Brenner

Group): Request denied.
Second Request No. 3 (GMGIs tax returns): Gawker shall provide

written verification that GMGI does not file tax returns.
Request Nos. 4 and 33 (Kinjas and GMGIs bank statements and

statements for Kinjas financial accounts in Hungary): Requests granted
1
in part and denied in part. Gawker shall provide 2015 bank statements for
GMGI and Kinja.
Request No. 5 (Kinjas tax returns): Request denied.
Request No. 6 (Dentons financial information sent to JP Morgan):

Request denied.
Request Nos. 7, 8, 23, 29 (additional bank account statements for Nick

Denton): Requests granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Denton shall
provide account statements for each of the bank accounts identified in
plaintiffs requests for December 2011, December 2012, December 2013,
December 2014, and May 2015.
Request Nos. 9, 13 (governing documents

agreements): Requests granted.
Request No. 10 (Gawker, GMGI, and/or Kinja insurance policies):

Request denied.
Request No. 11 (Silicon Valley Bank construction loan documents):

Request granted in part and denied in part. Gawker Media, LLC shall produce
its loan application for the June 2015 construction loan it obtained from
Silicon Valley Bank.
Request No. 12 (Financial disclosures re: 114 Fifth Avenue lease):

Request denied, except that Gawker shall provide a written verification that
the financial disclosures Gawker Media, LLC made to its landlord for 114
Fifth Avenue are the same as those which have already been produced in this
litigation.
Request No. 14 (Nick Dentons loans or investments in GMGI, Gawker

and/or Kinja): Request denied.
Request No. 15 (International licensing agreements): This request was

withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Request No. 16 (Monthly financial reports to SVB): Request granted in

part and denied in part. Gawker Media, LLC shall produce the monthly
financial reports it has submitted to Silicon Valley Bank in 2015.
Request Nos. 17, 18 (documents regarding GMGIs stock split and the
Gawker stock option plan): Requests granted.
Request No. 19 (historical capitalization tables for GMGI, Gawker, and

Kinja): Request denied, except that Gawker shall arrange to have GMGI
and inter-company
provide a written verification that the GMGI capitalization table previously

produced in this litigation is the most recent version.
Request No. 20 (board meeting minutes reflecting discussion of Gawker,

Kinja, or GMGIs financial condition during 2014-2015): This request
was withdrawn by plaintiff.
Request No. 21 (Gawker and GMGIs state and local income tax
returns): Request denied, except that Gawker Defendants shall provide a
written verification that Gawker Media, LLCs state and local tax returns for
2011-2013 reflect the same income and expense information that appears on
its federal returns.
Request No. 22 (Dentons prenuptial agreement): Request denied.
Request No. 24 (Dentons Fidelity investment accounts):

granted.
Request No. 25 (Dentons New York apartment insurance policies):

Mr. Denton shall provide a verification that he does not maintain insurance on
his Manhattan condominium, other than the insurance provided to all tenants
by the condominium association.
Request No. 26 (Mr. Dentons 2013 W2 forms):

withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Request
This request was
Request No. 27 (Dentons U.S. treasury bonds statement): Request

granted.
Request Nos. 30, 31 (transaction details for bank statements and every
monthly statement for each account since 2011): Requests denied.
Request No. 32 (Dentons irrevocable family trust documents): Request
granted.
Request No. 34 (Reports and notes of pitch meetings and meeting held
with prospective purchasers or financiers who sought to buy Gawker or
GMGI or a portion thereof): Request granted in part and denied in part.
Gawker shall provide presentation materials used in any pitch meetings and/or
any other meetings held with prospective purchasers or financiers.
IT IS FURTHER ORDER AND ADJUDGED that, by agreement of the parties, Gawker

shall produce the materials ordered produced within seven days of the entry of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiffs request for additional

financial worth depositions is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Pinellas County, Florida this ___ day of
, 2015.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Pamela A.M. Campbell
Circuit Court Judge
Copies furnished to Counsel of Record
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 6
CONFIDENTIAL
P riv ileg e Log o f D e fe n d a n t G a w k e r M e d ia , LLC

3 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
Ite m #
CC
From
To
D ate
Subject
Privilege Type
Gaby Darbyshire
1
3 /2 1 /2 0 1 2 <G aby@ gaw ker>

Ryan Brown
3 /1 0 /2 0 1 4 < ryan@ gaw ker.com >

H eath er Dietrick
3 /1 0 /2 0 1 4 < h dietrick@ gaw ker.com >

H eath er Dietrick
5 /1 3 /2 0 1 3 < h dietrick@ gaw ker.com >
5 /1 3 /2 0 1 3 < hdietrick@ gaw ker.com >
H eath er Dietrick
Nicholas Soivilien
Re: Copyrighted Images o f Moss
STL
Re: Copy right infringem ent.
AC, WP
Fwd: Copy right infringem ent.
AC, WP
Fwd: Pageviews on th e Rubino post/Seidm an photo
AC, W P
Jamie M elen d ez
<jam ie@ gaw ker.co m >
Legal <legal@ gaw ker.com >
Jamie M elen d ez
Jesse M a
<jesse@ gaw ker.com >
Jesse M a
Charlie Jane Anders <charliejane@ io9.com >;
A nnalee N ew itz <annalee@ io9.com >
Fwd: C&D
AC, W P
Re: Unauthorized photo usage
AC, WP
AC, WP
Re: U nauthorized photo usage
AC, WP
Re: U nauthorized photo usage
AC, W P
skidder@ gm ail.com
Jamie M elen d ez <jam ie@ gaw ker.co m >; Legal
<skidder@ gm ail.com >
< legal@ gaw ker.com >
AC, W P
skidder@ gm ail.com
Jamie M elen d ez <jam ie@ gaw ker.co m >; Legal
<legal@ gaw ker.com >
AC, WP
Fwd: Unauthorized photo usage
AC, WP
AC, WP
AC, WP
AC, WP
AC, WP
Jamie M elen d ez
6
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 John Cook <joh n @ gaw ker.com >

Jamie M elen d ez
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 John Cook <joh n @ gaw ker.com >

Jamie M elen d ez
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 <jam ie@ gaw ker.co m >

John Cook
<joh n @ gaw ker.com >
Jamie M elen d ez
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 John Cook <john @ gaw ker.com >
10
11

legal@ gaw ker.com
12
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 < legal@ gaw ker.com >

Scott Kidder
13
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 <scott@ gaw ker.com >

Jamie M elen d ez
14
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 <jam ie@ gaw ker.co m >

Scott Kidder
15
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 <scott@ gaw ker.com >
16
3 /6 /2 0 1 4 < hdietrick@ gaw ker.com >
H eath er Dietrick
skidder@ gm ail.com
Jamie M elendez
legal@ gawker.com < legal@ gaw ker.com >
H eath er Dietrick
< hdietrick@ gaw ker.com >
H eath er Dietrick
< hdietrick@ gaw ker.com >
johnduncan@ gaw ker.com
Scott Kidder <scott@ gaw ker.com >;
<johnduncan@ gaw ker.com >
AC: Attorney/Client Privilege; WP: Work Product Doctrine

STL: Settlement Privilege; Cl: Common Interest Privilege
Page 1
Privilege Log of Defendant Gawker Media, LLC
CONFIDENTIAL
3/28/20 14
Neetzan Zim m erm an
< neetzan@ gaw ker.com >; Legal
2532
1 1 /2 0 /2 0 1 3 <legal@ gaw ker.com >
Jesse M a
Tornado Photos
AC, WP
AC
2533 undated
G aw ker M ed ia, LLC
John Duncan
Summary Structural O utline
2534
G aw ker M ed ia, LLC
M a y e r Brown LLP
Economic Analysis
AC: Attorney/Client Privilege; WP: Work Product Doctrine

STL: Settlement Privilege; Cl: Common Interest Privilege
Page 172
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 7
132 S RODEO DRIVE. SUITE 301

BEVERLY HILLS, CA 9 0 2 1 2
-124 203 1600 WWW,HMAFIRM.COM
September 11, 2015

VIA EMAIL
Seth D. Berlin, Esq.
Michael Berry, Esq.
Paul J. Safier, Esq.
Alia L. Smith, Esq.
1899 L Street, NW,
Suite 200
Re:
Gregg D. Thomas, Esq

Rachel E. Fugate, Esq
601 S. Boulevard
Terry Gene Bollea v. Heather Clem. Gawker Media LLC. et al

Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Council in and for Pinellas County,
Florida Case Number 120124470-011
Dear Seth:
This letter concerns the financial worth discovery conducted by Mr. Bollea pursuant to
the Courts July 20, 2015 Order compelling production of documents. Such discovery remains
incomplete, and we write in the hopes of informally resolving the issue and avoiding a motion.
Missing trust documents. Gawker and Mr. Denton are in violation of the Courts July
20, 2015 Order requiring that they turn over all documents relating to his family trust which
would show the extent of his control over that trust, including trust documents, documents that
show the grantor, trustees, beneficiaries, and terms of the trust, shareholder voting rights, and
documents evidencing the consideration originally paid for the shares, date of creation of the
trust, and date shares in GMGI belonging to Mr. Denton were deposited into the trust. All of
these documents were clearly requested in Mr. Bolleas motion to compel, and Mr. Bolleas
motion was granted in full. However, no such documents were produced and Mr. Denton
contends in his Affidavit that he do[es] not have the documents memorializing the trust
The requested documents, however, go beyond those that merely memorialize the trust.
Moreover, any documents within the possession of Mr. Dentons counsel (who presumably do
possess copies of a trust created at the behest of Mr. Denton), or anyone else who can readily
make the documents available to Mr. Denton upon his request, are clearly within Mr. Dentons
custody and control and should be produced. Without these documents, it is impossible to fully
test the veracity of Mr. Dentons claim that he does not control the shares in the trust and thus
that his shares in GMGI (by far his largest asset) are not subject to a control premium.
Mr. S. Berlin, Esq.

September 11, 2015
Page 2
Missing account statements. Mr. Dentons 2012 tax return shows a London CitiGold
account, number 0000499375, with a maximum value during the year of over $100,000. No
statements from this account were produced, in violation of the courts July 20 order. Please
produce statements from this account consistent with the terms of the Courts order (i.e., for
December 2011, December 2012, December 2013, December 2014, and May 2015).
Additionally, in violation of the Courts July 20 order, the production is missing
statements for December 2011, 2012, and 2013 for CitiGold account number 0080708432, and
December 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 for CitiGold account number 0083411244, both of which
are listed on the 2012 tax return. Please produce these statements as required by the Courts
order.
Transfer pricing studies. Gawker has previously denied the existence of any transfer
pricing studies, in its response to the Fifth Set of Document Demands (e.g., Response to Request
140: subject to Gawkers understanding of the term transfer pricing studies, Gawker states
that it has no non-privileged documents responsive to this Request). However, the GawkerKinja license agreement [page GAWKER28910_C] recites the existence of such a study dated
December 12, 2011, which allegedly formed the basis of the compensation paid to Kinja
pursuant to the license agreement. This document should have been produced in response to
numerous document demands served during merits discovery, as well as during net worth
discovery. Please produce it forthwith.
Latest statement for each account. Mr. Bollea wishes to establish Mr. Dentons net
worth as close to the time as trial as possible. The Courts order attempted to deal with this by
requiring production of the latest statement (at the time May 2015) from each account held by
Mr. Denton. However, with the trial continuance, Mr. Bollea now requires the latest account
statement from each account so as to update the valuation. Please produce such statements.
Please provide written confirmation no later than the close of business on September 15,
2015 that these documents will be produced forthwith. Otherwise, Mr. Bollea will be forced to
again move to compel and to seek sanctions for Gawkers noncompliance with the July 20 court
order. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Je n n i f e r J. M c Gr a t h O f
H a r d e r M i r e l l & A b r a m s LLP
cc:

Ken Turkel, Esq.
Shane Vogt, Esq.
LEVINE SULLIVAN
K O C H & SC H U LZ, LLP
1899 L Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20 03 6
(202) 5 0 8-1 100 | Phone
(202) 8 6 1-9 888 | Fax
Seth D. Berlin
(202) 508-1122
sberlin@ lskslaw .com
September 17, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP
132 S. Rodeo Drive, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Re:
B o lle a v. C lem , G a w k e r M e d ia , L L C , e t a l..
No. 12012447-CI-011 (Fla. Cir. Ct.)

Objections to Financial Worth Discovery
Dear Jennifer:
I write in response to your letter sent on Friday evening, September 11, 2015 regarding
financial worth discovery.
Before turning to the substance of your letter, I feel constrained to renew my objection to
your firms repeated practice of waiting until Friday evenings or Jewish holidays to file motions
or send correspondence demanding an immediate response. In this instance, your letter was sent
after hours on a Friday evening and demanded a response within two business days, despite the
fact that those two days were Rosh Hashanah (the first of which is also a court holiday). This
was also unnecessary: your letter relates to discovery responses served some six weeks ago in
connection with a trial that is not for six months.
Turning to the substance of your letter:
Trust Documents. As Mr. Denton explained, under oath at his deposition and in a sworn
affidavit, neither Gawker nor he has possession, custody or control of the trust documents you
seek. Neither is a party to the trust agreement neither is the grantor of the shares in the trust,
the beneficiary of the trust, or the trustee. I also feel constrained to note that your letter demands
all manner of documents that were not included in either the document request at issue or the
Courts order, although that is largely academic in light of the foregoing.
Mr. Dentons Account Statements. Mr. Denton has provided all the required account
records that he has or has access to. As both he and we have explained, the few additional
statements you seek relate to long-closed accounts for which he no longer has copies or access to
obtain copies. Your continued insistence that he somehow locate years-old bank statements for
long-dormant accounts is entirely unreasonable. Mr. Denton has readily conceded that he is
Washington
N e w York
P h ila d e lp h ia
D enver
| LEVINE SULLIVAN
I KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP
September 17, 2015
Page 2
worth tens of millions of dollars, so continuing to seek records for closed accounts that once held
much more modest sums that are not material to his current financial worth serves no valid
purpose in connection with presenting plaintiffs case on that issue.
Transfer Pricing Studies. Gawker again confirms its response to RFP No. 140 that it
has no non-privileged documents responsive to this Request.
Latest Statement for Each Account. Mr. Denton will provide, by February 15, 2016,
the account statements for his active accounts for the period ending January 30, 2016.
Although you have repeatedly declined our invitations to discuss such matters informally,
I am willing to meet and confer about the above at a mutually-convenient time. In that regard,
and consistent with my comments above, please note that I will be out of the office on Tuesday
and Wednesday, September 22 and 23 in observance of Yom Kippur. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LEVINEfSULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP
cc: Other counsel of record
HARDER
MIRELL&
ABRAMS
1 9 2 5 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 8 0 0

LOS ANGELES, CA 9 0 0 6 7
4 2 4 , 2 0 3 , 1 6 0 0 WWW.HMAFIRM.COM
September 17, 2015

VIA EMAIL
Seth D. Berlin, Esq.
Michael Berry, Esq.
Paul J. Safier, Esq.
Alia L. Smith, Esq.
1899 L Street, NW
Suite 200
Re:
Gregg D. Thomas, Esq.

Rachel E. Fugate, Esq.
601 S. Boulevard
Terry Gene Bollea v. Heather Clem. Gawker Media, LLC, et al

Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Council in and for Pinellas County, Florida
Case Number 120124470-011
Dear Seth:
I write in response to your letter dated September 17, 2015.
First, we reject your claim that we are imposing unreasonable time periods to respond to
correspondence. Presumably, you were already aware of Gawkers positions with respect to all
the matters raised in my letter; therefore, it was certainly reasonable to seek a response within
four days of receipt of my letter. (In any event, if you needed a bit of extra time to respond due to
your being out of the office, you could have easily requested it as a matter of professional
courtesy.)
Second, the fact that the trial date is in March does not mean that discovery must be
delayed and pushed up against the trial date. In fact, this discovery was first ordered in May, and
it is now September and Mr. Bollea still does not have relevant documents on the net worth
issue.
Third, on the merits of the enumerated discovery issues, we respond as follows:
Trust Documents. Gawker and Denton are relying on an over-narrow definition of
control. We highly doubt that Denton cannot obtain documents relating to his family trust, a
trust that has a substantial interest in a multi-million dollar corporation which comprises the bulk
of his net worth. Defendants have asserted dubiously narrow definitions of control in the past
in this litigation (with respect to Kinja documents), and the Court rejected them. The Court has
already ordered the production of these documents over Gawkers and Dentons objections, and
unless your clients agree to comply with this order, we intend to obtain an order that specifically
September 17, 2015

S. Berlin
Page 2
requires production of documents that Gawker or Denton can obtain from the trust or the trusts
lawyers.
Further, the language in my letter regarding the scope of the request is taken directly from
Mr. Bolleas motion papers; the Court granted Mr. Bolleas motion on this issue in its July 20
order.
Mr. Dentons Account Statements. If Mr. Denton will provide a verified statement
under oath that the accounts at issue no longer exist or have zero balances, we will not pursue
our motion to compel in reliance on that representation.
Transfer Pricing Studies. Your response on this issue is completely at odds with the
relevant documentation. The agreement between Gawker and Kinja specifically recites that such
a study was done, which it specifically identifies, and further recites that the study was relied on
in determining the terms of the agreement. Thus, your claim that no such transfer pricing study
exists would mean that Gawker and Kinja made a false representation as a part of a document
that resulted in the shipping of millions of dollars every year out of Gawkers accounts and into
Hungary where it can be secreted from creditors and taxation authorities. In short, your claim
strains credibility, but if it is in fact true, it has serious implications for whether the transfers to
Kinja were fraudulent and those funds should be considered a part of Gawkers net worth (as
well as for proceedings supplementary which may occur to recover those moneys after a
judgment is entered). If, in fact, a transfer pricing study was done as Gawker and Kinja stated in
their agreement, please reconsider your position and produce it immediately.
Latest Statement for Each Account. In reliance on your representation that Mr. Denton
will provide the statements for all active accounts for the period ending January 30, 2016, no
later than February 15, 2016, Mr. Bollea will not move to compel production of these statements
at this time.
If you wish to discuss any of these matters, please write or call me no later than the close
of business September 21, 2015. If we do not resolve these matters, we will be forced to move to
compel and to seek monetary sanctions.
Sincerely,
Je n n i f e r J. M c Gr a t h Of
H a r d e r M i r e l l & A b r a m s LLP
cc:
Ken Turkel, Esq. (via email)

Shane Vogt, Esq. (via email)
David Houston, Esq. (via email)
LEVINE SULLIVAN
K O C H & SC H U LZ, LLP
1899 L S treet, NW
S u it c 2 0 0
W a s h i n g t o n , DC 2 0 0 3 6
(2 0 2 ) 508-1 1 00 1P h o n e
( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 1 - 98 8 8 | F a x
S e t h D. Ber l i n
(2 0 2 ) 5 0 8 - 1 1 2 2
September 21, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
132 S. Rodeo Drive, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Re:
B o lle a v. C lem , G a w k e r M e d ia , L L C , e t a l.,
No. 12012447-0-011 (Fla. Cir. Ct.)

Objections to Financial Worth Discovery
Dear Jennifer:
I write in response to your letter sent last Thursday night. To respond to your substantive
questions:
1. Transfer pricing study. Gawker has never contended that there was no such study.
Rather, it has explained that it has no non-privileged responsive documents. The
study, which was prepared by the law firm Mayer Brown, LLP, was included on the
privilege log produced by Gawker on March 28, 2014, and Mr. Kidder referenced it,
as a privileged document, at his second deposition (April 14, 2015) at pages 144-151.
2. Trust documents. As we and Mr. Denton have explained repeatedly: Mr. Denton is
not the grantor of the trust (his father transferred the shares into the trust), he is not
the beneficiary of the trust (his niece and nephews are), and he is not the trustee (his
sister is). Mr. Denton has no control over the trust, nor does he possess or control the
trust documents. See, e.g., Denton Dep. Tr. (June 16, 2015) at 152:9 - 165:9.
Although we think it would be illogical to argue that Mr. Dentons net worth includes
shares of GMGI that are in a trust with shares granted by his father, controlled by his
sister, and benefiting his niece and nephews, plaintiff remains free to make this non
sensical argument to the jury at trial, if the Court permits it.
3. Bank accounts. We believe that Mr. Denton has already testified that the accounts
you reference are closed or dormant and have zero balance. See, e.g., Denton Dep.
Tr. (June 16, 2015) at 30:15 - 31:3; 37:10-18; 49:21 - 50:14; 104:5-8. Nevertheless,
in an effort to avoid further debate or litigation over this non-issue, he will provide a
further affidavit confirming this fact.
Washington
N e w York
P hiladelphia
D enver
LS K S
LEVINE SULLIVAN
KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP
September 21, 2015
Page 2
As you know, I will be out of the office tomorrow and Wednesday in observance of Yom
Kippur. But I should generally be available on Thursday or Friday to discuss the foregoing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP
cc: Other counsel of record
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 8
Th e Gospel According to N ick Denton W hat Next For Th e Gawter Founder? - Th e Daily Beast
12/15/2014
A n d r e w H u r r e r /B lo a m h e r y / G e tty
EMPEROR
Lloyd
Grove.
The Gospel According to Nick

DentonWhat Next For The
Gawker Founder?
In a candid interview, the media entrepreneur talks about the future of
Gawker, staff changes, The New Republic, and the life-changing
importance of coming out.
Internet media entrepreneur Nick Denton is a person to whom harsh
judgments adhere like barnacles.
Theres no point in writing about Nick if you cant get to the fundamental
data:text/html;charset=utf-8 ,% 3C figure% 20class% 3D % 22hero-media% 22% 20 itemscope% 3D % 22% 22% 20 itemtvpe% 3D % 22http% 3A % 2 F % 2 F s c ^ i j | | C | g ^ ^ . Q Q ^ i j p | 3
12/15/2014
The Gospel According to N ick Denton What Next For T h e G a w te r Founder? - The D aily Beast
problem of his nihilism, former employee Moe Tkacik once told The N e w
Y orker about her boss.
Other peoples emotions are alien to him, another Denton underling, Choire
Sicha, said in the same article.
I think hes a total dick, TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington told me back
in 2 0 0 8 . I think hes amoral. I dont think he has any sense of right and wrong,
and hell do anything he can to make money and have a successful blog.
Yet the Nick Denton who greets me at the Nolita headquarters of Gawker
Mediathe Manhattan startup he founded on a shoestring, but which has
grown 1 2 years later into a $ 4 0 million-a-year company with some 3 0 0
employees on five continentswould seem to bear little resemblance to the
greedy sociopath of common caricature.
Im a constructive person, he insists. I like to build things. Im a sand castle
building kid who cant understand why other boys would want to kick the castle
down. I hate internal disputes and internal dissention and I will make every
effort to eliminate that.
Never mind that Gawker.com, Dentons original gossip blog, sharpened its teeth
on internal disputes, the mockery of the Manhattan media elite, and the
kicking-down of castlesan entertainingly brutish sensibility fueled by
understandable resentment, given that Denton barely paid his young charges
and worked them half to death.
(Back when I wrote a column for the New York Daily N e w s, I was a frequent
Gawker target; after I lost that job, Gawker reportednot inaccuratelythat I
might pass unnoticed, appearing to be any number of undistinguished and
fleshy middle-aged white men. Denton, laughing, says today: That seems
relatively generous.)
Denton, who speaks in the clipped cadence of the Oxford-educated Brit he is,
has built quite a castle. The Gawker Media empire consists of eight blogs
boasting 1 2 5 million unique visitors per month and devoted to sports
(Deadspin ), automobiles (Jaloprdk ), science fiction (io9 ), video games (K otaku ),
design and technology (G izm odo ), user-friendly software (Lifehacker ), and
womens interests (Jezebel).
data:text/html;charset=utf-8,%3Cflgure%20class%3D%22hero-media%22%20itemscope%3D%22%22%20iterntvpe%3D%22http%3A%2F 0/ o 2 F s c ^ n j| |C |g ^ ^ .Q Q ^ p - ji|
12/15/2014
The Gospel According to Nick Denton What Next For T h e G a w te r Founder? - Th e D aily Beast
Denton talks excitedly of his plans to move Gawker Medias headquarters next
year to a luxuriously renovated building on Fifth Avenue and 1 7 th Street in
Manhattans Flatiron neighborhood, complete with a two-story entertainment
and event venue.
I came out
completely to
everybody 16
years ago. It
changes the
climate, it
changes the
weather, it
changes the
entire
environment.
He has signed a long-term lease for

three 1 9 ,0 0 0 -square-foot floors, with
plans to defray the enormous rent
(around $4 .5 million a year) by
subletting one of the floors to another
company.
Well actually be in the same building
as First Look, Denton says gleefully,
referring to eBay billionaire Pierre
Omidyars troubled media startup,
which has been riven by staff shakeups,
internal bickering, and firings.
Right now Im rather afraid that First

Look is going to be a small huddle of
people in this vast, cavernous space,
Denton adds, not bothering to suppress
a giggle. Thats a major part of Omidyars $ 2 5 0 millionits a significant chunk
of real estate. Hes going to have a hard time. The market is cruel.
valued in the neighborhood of $ 3 0 0 million, though Denton says, On the open

market, if it were for salewhich it isnt its more like $ 2 0 0 million.
At this point in his life, Denton has enough filthy lucre in his bank account to
affect a certain lack of interest in the stuff. This is not a money-making
venture, he insists. For me, I just like the activity, and the activity just
happens to make money.
He scoffs at the suggestion that a large companyin much the same way that
AOL purchased Arianna Huffingtons services while swallowing up
data:texl/htm l;charset=utf-8,% 3C figure% 20class% 3D % 22hero-m edia% 22% 20item scope% 3D % 22% 22% 20item t>pe% 3D % 22http% 3A % 2F% 2Fsc^nj|.c|g^^.Q Q ^/p-]
12/15/2014
Th e Gospel According to N ick Denton W hat Next For T h e Gawter Founder? - T h e D aily Beast
theHuffington P o st for $ 3 1 5 millioncould keep Denton on as Gawkers leader
who reports to upper management with the promise of a commensurately

gigantic payday.
How manageable do you think I am? asks Denton, who, after a career as a
working journalist for Britains Telegraph and Financial Tim es, serendipitously
became a Web entrepreneurand a millionairein the late 1 9 9 0 s with the sale
of a party and event site called First Tuesday.
I havent been managed for a long time, he says. I like the culture here. I
like my colleagues. I couldnt imagine a team of executives I would trust and
enjoy working with like my colleagues here...I dont think I could operate in one
of those larger and more political organizations.
Denton, who at 4 8 is something of a grand old man of the Web, sports his
trademark gray stubble and a muted sweater the color of mushroom soup, as
he holds forth in a glass-encased conference room (having evicted two of
Gawker Medias twenty-something Hungarian software developers in town
from the Budapest office for an all hands meeting and a holiday party).
Its the day after Denton announcedwith a great deal more fanfare in Capital
New York and the New York Times than perhaps the news deservedthat
hes giving up the title of president of his company but retaining the title of
CEO.
Its the sort of executive tweak that might warrant a business-section headline
about a publicly traded media firm 5 0 0 times the size of Dentons.
Yet in a 4 ,1 1 0 -word communiquethe W ar and P eace of corporate memoshe
outlined a new management structure in which the famously domineering and
decisive boss would now share power with six senior Gawker Media executives
and run the company by consensus.
The memosprinkled with decidedly non-corporate words such as douche
and fuckingcopped to Dentons own mistakes and those of others, notably
the promotion and subsequent demotion of Gawker Media executive editor Joel
Johnson, in a writing style that Denton calls bluntbut calculatedly blunt.
He doesnt want to talk about Johnson, an old and possibly former friend who
data:text/htm l;charset=utf-8,% 3Cfigure% 20class% 3D% 22hero-m edia% 22% 20item scope% 3D% 22% 22% 20item t>pe% 3D% 22http% 3A% 2F% 2Fsc^T^;c j g ^ ^ . Q Q ^ / j p | g
12/15/2014
The Gospel According to NickDenton What Next For The Gawker Founder? - Th e Daily Beast
Denton believes is angry at himand Johnson didnt respond to an email from

The Daily Beast. In his memo, Denton wrote, I made a mistake in Editorial,
hiring a talented guy whose voice and vibe I loved, who represented nerd
values, and whom I thrust into a job which changed under his feet.
Denton indicated that the Gawker and Gizmodo sites under Johnsons
leadership werent making enough noise with well-reported scoops. I didnt
even think to warn that Gawker is always first about the story, Denton wrote.
I took that for granted. I was in so much of a hurry that I didnt even look at
other candidates, a cardinal sin. I made a mistake, and Im sorry to Joel, and
Im sorry to those to whom he is a friend.
Of course, the memo was mostly about Denton, who compared himself to a
dead Chinese Communist leader The fact is, Denton wrote, that I would like
to end my career as a behind-the-scenes powerbroker, a Deng Xiaoping of
Gawker Media, exerting discreet influence through obscure committees. Its
more my style. He hardly needed to add: Im a showman; I do like to make a
splash.
In a wide-ranging conversation, Denton dished on competitors, shared his
theories on the media business, discussed his pragmatic political views
tempered by his pro-life position on abortion rights, confided his hopes to
become a parent since his marriage in May to actor Derrence Washington, and
explained how coming out as gay 1 6 years ago has informed his thinking about
crisis public relations.
*On the public hammering being administered to Facebook billionaire and N e w
Republic owner Chris Hughes in the wake of last weeks defenestration of
longtime TNR editors Franklin Foer and Leon Wieseltier and the mass exodus
of nearly all of the others: Media executives like Chris HughesI dont know
whether youd call Chris Hughes an executivep eo p le like Chris Hughes have
to remember that before any of the HR rules, you need to remember the
number one rule of PR, which is: Get ahead of the story. You have to make sure
that your version of the story is ready. You have to talk to your people before
they hear from other people and you have to publish before other people
publish. A reactive management memo after a story already leaps outthats
just a mistake. Thats bad practice.
data:text/htm l;charset=utf-8,% 3C figure% 20class% 3D % 22hero-m edia% 22% 20item scope% 3D % 22% 22% 20item t>pe% 3D % 22http% 3A % 2F% 2Fsc^nj^.c|gg^.Q Q ^/f3|7
12/15/2014
*On how Denton acquired his crisis management insights: Its partly to do
with being out and being gay, and seeing the transformation that takes place. I
came out completely to everybody 1 6 years ago. When you realize that if you
own your own story, if you say it yourself, it has a transformative effect, and
youre no longer a closeted homo waiting for that moment when somebody is
going to call you out, and you actually take that initiative rather than being
dragged out. It changes the climate, it changes the weather, it changes the
entire environment.
*On the person chosen to replace Frank Foer as TNRs editor in chief, Gabriel
Snyder, who worked for Denton in 2 0 0 9 as Gawkers top editor: He was a
poor one. He hired some good people, he worked really hard, but he didnt have
any story aggression. (Snyder didnt respond to emails from the Daily B east.)
*On the recent flap in which a top executive of the Uber ride-sharing network
suggested at a private New York dinner that it might be advisable to hire
opposition researchers to investigate Uber critic Sarah Lacy, editor of the tech
site P andoD aily : That was such a nonsense scandal. What do you think these
PR people, at least the good ones, are doing anyway? Theyre dropping ideas
for stories, and a good journalist is always looking for people to dish on
competitors or dish on enemiesthats where all the good information is.
As for Lacywho worked with Michael Arrington at TechCm nch when he was
a frequent victim of Dentons tech biz blog Valley w a g (which these days is
folded into Gawker.com)I think Arringtons place has been taken by Sarah
Lacy. In terms of somebody whose journalistic power has gone to their head,
that makes her a perfect target for satire.
Lacy retorts: Ive pretty much run out of things to say about Nick Dentons
obsession with my life. But I guess Ubers [co-founder] Travis Kalanick will be
happy to know theres always a home for stories about me on Gawker.
*On his abiding love for the United States: Im married to an American so Im
staying in America. Im going to become a citizen, though I have to check out
the tax consequences first.
*On his political beliefs, although he doesnt bother to vote: My politics are
that I like to get things done, so I am centrist and, for obvious reasons, Im
data:texl/htm l;charset=utf-8,% 3Cfigure% 20class% 3D% 22hero-m edia% 22% 20item scope% 3D% 22% 22% 20item tvpe% 3D% 22http% 3A% 2F% 2Fscîj|;c | g ^ p f .Q Q ^ ijp |
12/15/2014
socially liberal. I dont really believe that the governmentor, in fact, any kind
of hierarchical organizationis very good at delivering any kind of service. As
for his views on abortion, Theres no advantage to me of going there. I dont
have conventional liberal views on abortion, no.
*On the prospect of parenthood: Probably yes.
*On his philosophy of the digital media business: The real secret of success is
to avoid the herd. This is a new medium. Its developing pretty rapidly and
there are relatively few people who understand it and have a real sense of how
everythingmobile, personalization, desktop, interactive comments, blogginghow all these pieces are going to fit together. A lot of people who seem to know
what theyre talking about dont.
And if you spend all your time reading Twitter and the Internet trades, you
will veer this way and that, and youll be latching on to the latest trends and
spouting the latest buzzwords and talking about millennials and engagement
and youll lose sight of who you are and end up with soulless properties.
*In defense of nihilism: Some of our younger staff, particularly on a site like
Gawker, can be a little nihilistic. I think with that generation, so many of their
hopes have been so dashed that nihilism is really a natural response. Does the
Internet make for a better world? Not really.
The Internet has made for as much toxic discussion as it has for mutual
understanding. And what were those other hopes? Oh right, Obama. That
didnt really work out for people. And jobs arent that plentiful and career paths
arent there. Even in journalism, the career path from blog to magazine to book
to a comfortable lifethat doesnt realty exist.
So, in the young Manhattan intelligentsia, nihilism is actually pretty standard.
And one has to fight against that and create some haven for optimism. And
thats really hard to do.
SHARE
TWEET
POST
EMAIL
AROUND THE WEB

data:text/htm l;charset=utf-8,% 3C figu re% 20class% 3D % 22hero -m edia% 22% 20item scop e% 3D % 22% 22% 20iterrtype% 3D % 22http% aA % 2F% 2Fs(îj|x^^^f 0 0 4 ^ P l 9
12/15/2014
What Stephen King

Wishes He Never Said
F KAT I, R E 5, A O L , O VI
7 Ways To Shut Down

A Climate Change
Denier
'Game of Thrones'
Cast Before The Big
Show
MTV. COM
FHAT U K I 5, A O I,,C ( ) M
00#f20
Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM
Exhibit 9
Gawter Media Raising M oney- Business Insider
1/28/2015
BUSINESS
IN S ID E R
Gawker Media Generated $45

Million In Net Revenue Last Year
And It's Raising A $15 Million Round
Of Debt
ALYSON SHONTELL
JAN. 28, 2015, 7:47 AM
Nick Denton
orders the
shrimp linguine.
He doesn't look
at Balthazar's
menu; the
media mogul
frequents the
restaurant and
everyone from
the hostess to
fellow diners
knows who he is.
Denton
personally owns
just under 5 0 %
Business I aside r
of Gawker
Nick Denton
Media, a
company he
founded and
bootstrapped in
the early 2 0 0 0 s, before Facebook was a semi-reliable traffic hose forpublishers and
banner ads generated meaningful revenue. Through a I'amilv lnisi. ^ ^ ^ ^ K n s 68%
The board currently consists of himself and Gawker's CTO Tom Plunkett, although
Denton is looking to add three new, strategic faces to his table. Union Square Ventures'
Fred Wilson was one person he considered as an advisor, although they haven't found a
way to work together yet.
http://vwvw.businessinsider.com/gawter-media-raising-money-2015-1
1/5
1/28/2015
Gawker Media Raising M oney- Business Insider
Aside from a casual conversation or two, Denton says he has never been tempted to sell
his site, which is worth at least $ 2 5 0 million based on the company's 2 0 1 4 net revenue of
$ 4 5 million. But growing Gawker Media hasn't always been easy.
Denton admits that while his company's traffic increased 2 0 % last year to almost 5 0 0
million monthly pageviews and 1 3 0 million unique visitors, Gawker wasn't producing its
strongest content.
"Editorial traffic was lifted but often by viral stories that we would rather mock," Denton
lamented in a recent company-wide memo. "We were nowhere on the Edward Snowden
affair. We wrote nothing particularly memorable about NSA surveillance. Gadgets felt
unexciting. Celebrity gossip was emptier than usual."
In a matter of months, Gawker's entire Valleywag editorial team turned over. Gizmodo,
which was once a category leader in tech and gadget news, lost key writers and suffered
from competition with other up-and-coming publications like The Verge. Annalee Newitz,
who ran Gawker's tech blog i09, was recently placed at the helm of a combined iOq and
Gizmodo entity to oversee a turn-around.
Earlier in 2 0 1 4 , Denton himself felt a little burnt out. He took a sabbatical following his
May wedding. But he says he returned refreshed, with an action plan.
That action plan included promoting six of his staffers to managing partners; they now
share Denton's role at the top of the organization. Heather Dietrick took over Denton's
role as Gawker's President; Erin Pettigrew leads Strategy; Tommy Craggs is executive
editor of all 8 Gawker websites, including Jezebel and Deadspin; Scott Kidder is COO;
Andrew Gorenstein is President of Advertising; Tom Plunkett is CTO. Most business
decisions between the seven leaders are now made in a massive group text messaging
chain.
From a revenue perspective, things at Gawker have never been better. Even Gizmodo,
which has stumbled, has played an integral role in the company's e-commerce efforts.
Last year, Gawker Media's gross e-commerce revenue exploded to $ 1 0 0 million, netting
it about $ 1 0 million, paired with $ 3 5 million in traditional advertising revenue. Gawker's
e-commerce product, headed up by long-time employee Erin Pettigrew, primarily places
affiliate links in articles about products that can be purchased on sites like Amazon.
Skimlinks helps Gawker monetize this referral traffic.
Ryan Brown, Gawker's VP of Business Development, says Cyber Monday and Black
Friday were "like the Super Bowl" for Gawker's commerce team, which spent months
planning ways to promote the best holiday deals. This past Saturday, an Amazon Prime
promotion Gawker ran generated 2 5 , 0 0 0 subscriptions.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gawter-media-raising-money-2015-1
2/5
Gawker Media Raising M o ney- Business Insider
1/28/2015
Gawker Media Group Revenue Diversification, 2010-2014
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$ 20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2010
2011
Com m erce & Licensing
2012
2013
2014
Direct Advertising
Q uicker Media
Gawker's revenue over the past few years. E-commerce became meaningful during
2014.
Denton has never raised traditional capital from a venture firm or corporation, but his
2 0 1 5 plan does include raising millions of dollars of debt from a few banks and funds.
Denton says the amount will be "less than 1 0 % of the company's open-value market of
equity," likely $ 1 5 million. And he promises Gawker will still be "beholden to no one."
"[The financing is] not particularly aggressive," says Denton. "We've been almost
embarrassingly under-leveraged and conservatively run!" Young America Capital is
leading the process.
http://www.businessinsider.corrVgawter-media-raising-mone^2015-1
3/5
1/28/2015
90
700
80
600
70
500
60
400
SO
Venture Capital Railed (milliom)
ComScore Audience (December)
300
30
200
20
100
10
( h n v k c r Media
The cash will be used to further growth and continue transforming Gawker from a
publisher into a platform like Twitter or Facebook.
"We will be the first online media company to create its own technology, rather than be
reduced to a content provider subject to someone else's algorithm," Denton wrote in his
memo.
Kinja, which turns every commenter into a blogger, was one innovative attempt to turn
Gawker into a platform. This year, Denton is energized by the intersection of mobile
messaging and media, and he is eager to figure out how Gawker can create sharable
content for phones. He also wants to experiment with new ways to seed, test, and spread
content online.
While 2 0 1 4 was a year of growth for Gawker, Denton pledges that
2015
will be better.
"For a good 1 2 months from the summer of 2 0 1 3 I was variously betrothed, distracted,
obsessed by Kinja, off on honeymoon, off on sabbatical. I'm not sorry for that. For ten
years, I've danced with this octopus," Denton wrote honestly to his staffers. "I have now
a balanced team of partners whose capabilities are widely acknowledged. These are six
people I can confide in. I am happy to share power with them. We will be candid with
each other. The drift this year: it will never happen again."
* Copyright 2015 Business Insider Inc. All rights reserved.
4/5
1/28/2015
5/5
Filing # 34351281 E-Filed 11/12/2015 09:30:21 AM

Plaintiff,
vs
Case No.:
12012447-CI-011
GAWKER MEDIA, LLC

aka GAWKER MEDIA; et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL
ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL WORTH DISCOVERY
Defendants Gawker Media, LLC (Gawker), Nick Denton and A.J. Daulerio have
provided plaintiff with substantial detailed documentation of their financial worth.1 In addition,
1
This includes: Gawkers income statements for every year since 2011, plus for the
period January through April 2015; Gawkers balance sheets for every year since 2011, plus for
the period January through April 2015; Gawkers statements of cash flow for every year since
2011, plus for the period January through April 2015; Gawkers statement of accounts
receivable; all of Gawkers federal tax returns since 2011; all of Nick Dentons federal tax
returns since 2011; all available W2 forms for Denton since 2011; lengthy valuation reports
(each running to more than 70 pages) of Gawker Media Group, Inc. (GMGI), from 2012, 2013,
and 2014, by The Brenner Group, an independent third party, each including more than a dozen
exhibits containing detailed financial information considered by the Brenner Group in
completing its valuation; financial statements of GMGI, audited and/or reviewed by CPA firm of
Citrin Cooperman for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014; the most recent capitalization table showing
ownership interests in GMGI; Gawkers leases for its former and current office spaces; a 2013
independent appraisal of Dentons Manhattan condominium, showing its value; a recent
mortgage statement for Dentons condominium showing the amount still owed; recent bank
statements for each of the Gawker Defendants current accounts, plus end-of-year account
statements for each year available back to 2011; stock certificates showing various investments;
bank statements showing payments between Gawker and Kinja, KFT; Gawkers operating
agreement; Gawkers promissory notes and loan statement; compliance certificates submitted by
Gawker to Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in connection with Gawkers loan; the most recent
amendment to the loan and security agreement with SVB; Memorandum and Articles of
Association for GMGI; various agreements between Kinja and Gawker, including their
Intercompany Services Agreement, their License Agreement, and their Development Agreement;
the 2009 GMGI stock plan, along with a stock-related board resolution and meeting minutes; and
a pitch book containing significant financial data.
1
***ELECTRONIC ALLY FILED 11/12/2015 09:30:21 AM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
they answered comprehensive financial worth interrogatories, submitted financial worth

affidavits, and answered a wide array of questions during half-day depositions focusing solely on
their financial worth. And, even before the Court permitted plaintiffs punitive damages claim
and authorized related discovery on financial worth, the financial state of Gawker had been the
focus of substantial discovery and depositions in the case.
Plaintiff has already twice asked this Court to compel more financial worth information
(first at the hearing on May 29, 2015, and again at the hearing on June 29, 2015). In light of the
substantial discovery already provided, the Court largely denied both motions. Now, plaintiff
has filed yet another motion seeking still more information. His latest motion, however, does not
seek documents that provide any additional information about Gawker or Dentons financial
worth. First, plaintiff seeks a report prepared nearly four years ago by Gawkers tax attorneys
offering legal advice. It does not add anything to the substantial information already provided
about Gawkers value and is clearly protected by the attorney-client privilege. Second, plaintiff
seeks documents relating to a trust that does not involve either Gawker or Denton. Denton did
not establish the trust, was not the grantor of the shares in the trust (his father was), is not the
beneficiary of the trust (his niece and nephews are), and is not the trustee (his sister is). The trust
documents would not add anything to the parties understanding of Dentons financial worth, and
neither Denton nor Gawker possess or has any legal right to obtain those documents.
Plaintiffs motion should be denied, and his request for additional depositions (what
would be Gawkers fourth and Dentons third) and for sanctions should be rejected out of hand.
ARGUMENT
A.
The Economic Analysis Report Is Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege.

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to obtain an analysis prepared for Gawker in 2011 -
almost a year before the publication at issue in this case - by the law firm Mayer Brown, LLP.
See Mot. at 4-6. Although Bollea inexplicably has chosen to call this analysis The Transfer
Pricing Study and claims he was misled because Gawker referred to it as an Economic
Analysis, id. at 2, 4, the report prepared by Mayer Brown is titled Economic Analysis of
Royalty Payments Between Gawker Media LLC and Blogwire Hungary KFT, as reflected in
one of the exhibits submitted by plaintiff. See Conf. Harder Aff, Ex. A. The Mayer Brown
Report contains legal advice about the legal effects of royalty rates Gawker pays to license
intellectual property from its sister company, Kinja, KFT. Gawker has withheld this document
on grounds of attorney-client privilege ever since plaintiff first requested it more than a year-anda-half ago. Now, plaintiff belatedly claims that Gawker should be ordered to produce it, but the
arguments he offers misstate both the facts and the law.
First, plaintiff argues that Mayer Browns Report is a valuation of intellectual property,
which is not subject to the attorney-client privilege. Mot. at 3, 5. To make this argument,
plaintiff speculates that Gawker is cloaking non-legal advice . . . by routing it through a law
firm, and that Mayer Browns retention was a ghost hiring for no other purpose than to
[enable Gawker to] create a phony privilege claim. Id. at 5-6. This outrageous contention that a major law firm conspired with Gawker to concoct a privilege claim - has no foundation
whatsoever. In fact, plaintiffs own motion attaches another document that explains the nature of
Mayer Browns analysis, stating that Mayer Brown analysed the appropriate arms length
pricing for the royalty payable by [Gawker] to [Kinja] with respect to intellectual property3
associated with Gawkers brand. See Conf. Harder Aff., Ex. A, at 1 (Gawker 28910 C)
(providing additional information about Mayer Browns analysis and the nature of its Report,
including that it was based on recognizing the importance of maintaining an arms length
relationship and pricing the royalty hereunder in accordance with arms length terms). While
Gawker will not waive the privilege by revealing the substance of Mayer Browns advice, it will
state for the record that the analysis (a) was prepared in December 2011 by Mayer Brown
attorney Charles S. Triplett (who had previously served as an attorney in the IRSs Office of
Chief Counsel), and (b) provided Gawker with legal advice under Section 482 of the Internal
Revenue Code and regulations interpreting that section, which govern an appropriate arms
length standard for transactions and allocations between companies that are owned by a common
parent corporation. Such advice falls squarely within the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., In
re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1037 (2d Cir. 1984)
(Tax advice rendered by an attorney is legal advice within the ambit of the privilege.); New
Phoenix Sunrise Corp. v. C.I.R., 408 F. Appx 908, 919 (6th Cir. 2010) (advice provided by
outside counsel on tax issues is privileged); Ross v. UKILtd., 2004 WL 67221 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15,
2004) (same); U.S. v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d
also Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d at
(N.D. Cal. ^ ^ 1 ) (same); see
(Communications between a client and its
outside counsel are presumed to be made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.).2
The two cases cited by plaintiff are inapposite. One, Skorman v. Hovnanian o f Florida,
Inc., 382 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (cited in Mot. at 5), stands for the unremarkable and
irrelevant proposition that business advice is not subject to the attorney-client privilege. The
other, In re Asousa P ship, 2005 WL 3299823 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2005) (cited in Mot. at
5), held that an appraisal done by a valuation company (not a law firm) was not privileged
simply because the partys outside counsel was copied on its transmittal. Id. at *10-11. Here,
the Report was prepared by attorneys at Mayer Brown for the purpose of providing legal advice.
No other party was involved in the creation of the document, and Mayer Brown was not a
conduit of any kind. Id. at *4.
4
Second, plaintiff claims that he needs Mayer Browns Economic Analysis Report to
determine how the fee Gawker is paying Kinja is calculated. Mot. at 2. This claim also is not
correct. Plaintiff already knows how the fee Gawker is paying Kinja is calculated and how much
money is being paid because the formula is set out in the licensing agreement attached to
plaintiffs motion. See Conf. Harder Aff., Ex. A at Article VI (GAWKER 28912 C). In
addition, Gawker has produced reams of documents detailing the actual dollar amounts it has
paid to Kinja since 2011, including its balance sheets and bank records reflecting each of those
individual transactions. Plaintiff does not need to invade the privilege of the Mayer Brown
Report to understand the amounts that Gawker pays to Kinja, even assuming that plaintiff needs
that information at all to assess Gawkers overall financial worth.
Finally, plaintiff misstates the record when he claims that Gawker somehow misled him
about the existence of Mayer Browns Report. The existence of this Report was not a recent
revelation. Mot. at 3; see also Mot. at 2 (falsely stating that Report was not revealed until
July 2015). Gawker disclosed the Mayer Brown Report more than 18 months ago - in March
2014 - when it listed the document on its privilege log. See Mot., Ex. 6. That log stated
explicitly that Gawker had withheld as privileged a document titled Economic Analysis written
by Mayer Brown LLP and dated 12/11/2011. Id.
Gawkers corporate representative, Scott Kidder, also referenced the Report in April
2015 at the second of his three depositions. While maintaining the substance of the Report as
privileged, Kidder specifically and repeatedly referenced it in his testimony. When asked about
the people involved in deciding the terms of the fee for the royalty agreement between Gawker
Media and Kinja, Kidder explained that Mayer Brown was hired to prepare a study to
make sure that there were terms appropriate for an arms length transaction. Ex. 1 (Kidder
Dep.) at 144:10-17. Kidder further testified that Mayer Brown offered legal advice about what
is an appropriate arrangement. Id. at 145:2-10.
Plaintiff was not misled about the Report. He simply chose not to inquire further about it
on either of these occasions. His belated effort to compel the Reports production now - and
then to conduct a fourth deposition of Gawker as a result - should be rejected. The Report is
both privileged and has no bearing on plaintiffs ability to assess Gawkers financial worth.
B.
Denton Does Not Have Possession, Custody or Control of the Trust Documents,
and They Are Unnecessary In Any Event.
Plaintiff next argues that the Court should compel Gawker and Denton to produce certain
trust documents that do not involve either of them and that are not under their control. The trust
was established by Dentons father, who created the trust for the benefit of his grandchildren
(Dentons niece and nephews) and named Dentons sister as the trustee. Denton is not involved
in the trust at all. See Ex. 2 (Affidavit of Nick Denton, attesting that he is not a trustee or
beneficiary of the trust and do[es] not control it); see also Conf. Harder Affi, Ex. B at
153:20-22, 154:6-7 (Denton testifying about trustee and beneficiaries). Simply stated, Denton
was not the grantor/creator of the trust (his father was), he is not a beneficiary of the trust (his
>
nieces and nephews are), and he is not the trustee (his sister is). Given these undisputed (and
indisputable) facts, plaintiffs argument for seeking to compel the trust documents misses the
mark. His motion should be denied for at least two reasons.
>
Plaintiff misstates the record by claiming that Denton transferred [the shares] into the
trust. Mot. at 7. Denton never testified that he established the trust or transferred the shares
into the trust - in fact, plaintiffs counsel never asked those questions. Moreover, during the
deposition, Dentons counsel objected to plaintiffs counsels use of the term grantor in her
questions, expressing his concern that Denton might get tripped up on the meaning of that legal
term. Conf. Harder Affi, Ex. B at 152:20 - 153:3.
6
First, the trust documents plaintiff seeks are not within Dentons possession, custody, or
control. It is uncontested that Denton does not possess or have custody of the trust documents.
As Denton has attested under oath, I do not have the documents memorializing the trust. Ex.
2; see, e.g., Discovery, Civ. Prac. FL-CLE, 16.67 (it is clear that a party may not be required
to produce matters the party does not have) (citing Fritz v. Norflor Constr. Co., 386 So. 2d 899
(Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). This is consistent with the brief exchange between the Court and
Dentons counsel at a prior hearing, in which the Court expressed its view that [sjomewhere
along the way, he would have a record if its his, and Dentons counsel explained that Its not
his. Thats what Im saying. Ex. 3 (June 29, 2015 Hrg. Tr.) at 135:19-22; see also id. at
135:16-18 (MR. BERLIN: Well, I dont know that he has any documents to give, Your Honor,
because hes not the trustee; hes not the beneficiary.).4*7
Denton also does not have control over the documents. The Florida Supreme Court has
interpreted control to mean that a party has the authority to gain access to the records. S.
Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1388 (Fla. 1994) (emphasis added); see also
Discovery, Civ. Prac. FL-CLE, 16.67 (The concept of control has generally been held to
mean the legal right to obtain the requested documents.). Likewise, the Eleventh Circuit has
explained that [cjontrol is defined not only as possession, but as the legal right to obtain the
documents requested upon demand. Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650, 653 (11th Cir. 1984)
(emphasis added); accord Fin. Bus. Equip. Solutions, Inc. v. Quality Data Sys., Inc., 2008 WL
4 In that same vein, while the Court granted plaintiffs motion to compel plaintiffs
requests related to trust documents, those requests were limited to any trust in which Denton
personally was the grantor, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or in which [he has] or had any
interest, Ex. 4 at 13 (Financial Worth RFP to Denton No. 42), or any . . . trusts in which YOU
have an interest, id. at 11 (Financial Worth RFP to Denton No. 33). Plaintiffs contention that
these requests extend to trusts in which Denton is uninvolved, or that Denton should be
sanctioned for not producing documents he does not have, is not well taken.
7
4663277, at *2 n.5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2008).5 Here, plaintiff has made no factual or legal
showing that Denton has a legal right to obtain records concerning a trust for which he was not
the grantor and of which he is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary. While the law requires a
party to produce documents maintained by his agents (such as, for example, his attorney or his
publicist), plaintiff has cited no case suggesting that a party has the legal authority to demand
that his relatives give him their documents.
Instead, plaintiff claims that Denton has the practical ability to obtain the materials
sought on demand, and therefore he must do so. Mot. 7-8 (quoting Costa v. Kerzner Intl
Resorts, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 468, 471 (S.D. Fla. 2011)). Plaintiffs claim is based on a
mischaracterization of both the law - the cited case deals with entities within a corporate family
- and Dentons deposition testimony. Denton never said that he could obtain the trust
documents. Rather, as the deposition excerpts attached to plaintiffs motion plainly show, when
asked when the trust was created and when his family actually acquired the shares in the
trust, Denton explained that he thought he could get that information. Conf. Harder Aff., Ex.
B at 158:7-15. Plaintiff never asked whether, and Denton certainly never testified that, he could
or would obtain the trust documents. In any event, the fact that a party could obtain a document
if it tried hard enough and maybe if it didnt try hard at all does not mean that the document is in
its possession, custody, or control; in fact it means the opposite. Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe
Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1427 (7th Cir. 1993).5*8
5 When construing Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida courts may look to federal
case law construing similar or identical Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as this case where
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350(a) is similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).
Saewitz v. Saewitz, 79 So. 3d 831, 834 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495
So. 2d 886, 887-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)).
8
Finally, trust documents in which Denton is not involved would not shed any additional
light on his financial worth. Plaintiff claims that the trust documents are necessary to establish
that Dentons own shares of GMGI are worth more if has a controlling interest in GMGI. Mot.
at 7. Although the Gawker Defendants believe that it makes no sense to argue that Denton is
worth more because of assets held by family members, plaintiff remains free to make this
argument at trial. The point of that argument is that those family members (his niece and
nephews) also own shares of the company, but that fact is both undisputed and already the
subject of sworn deposition testimony and substantial other evidence. As a result, the actual trust
documents, which Denton does not have, are entirely unnecessary for plaintiff to be able to make
his argument.
C.
Plaintiffs Request for Additional Depositions Is Baseless.

In addition to seeking more documents, plaintiff also asks the Court to require Gawker
and Denton to appear for more depositions - a third deposition of Denton, and a fourth
deposition of Scott Kidder, Gawkers corporate representative. But the Court, on June 29, 2015,
rejected plaintiffs earlier request for this same relief. Ex. 3 ( June 29, 2015 Hrg. Tr.) at 139:16
(THE COURT: Were done with depositions.). Nothing has changed. Gawker and Denton
have already provided extensive testimony and documents about their financial worth at multiple
depositions, and further depositions are neither necessary nor justified.
Plaintiff also argues that he should get additional depositions because Gawker produced
certain documents after the financial worth depositions. Putting aside the fact that this argument
was already rejected by this Court on June 29, his argument ignores the facts that plaintiff waited
until just before the discovery cut off to seek punitive damages and to ask for financial worth
discovery, and that the Gawker Defendants facilitated that discovery even before the punitive
damages motion was adjudicated. Moreover, both the Mayer Brown study and the trust
involving Dentons extended family were well known to plaintiff long before the financial worth
depositions were conducted. Plaintiff should not be able to sit on his hands, have the Court deny
an earlier request for additional depositions, and then be able to move once again for the same,
already-rejected relief.
D.
Plaintiffs Request for Fees/Sanctions Is Frivolous.

Plaintiff argues that the Gawker Defendants should be subject to sanctions because they
are obstructing discovery by (1) having buried the Mayer Brown Economic Analysis Report,
even though Gawker listed it on its privilege log and it was the subject of deposition testimony
by its corporate designee, and (2) failing to produce trust documents that Denton does not have.
Mot. at 8. For the reasons stated above, these arguments are baseless as a matter of fact and law.
As a result, and as more generally explained in the Gawker Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs in connection with 15 prior discovery motions, plaintiffs
fee request is without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion should be denied in its entirety.
Dated: November 12, 2015
THOMAS & LOCICERO PL

By:
/s/ Gress D. Thomas____

Gregg D. Thomas
Florida Bar No.: 223913
Rachel E. Fugate
Florida Bar No.: 0144029
601 South Boulevard
P.O. Box 2602 (33601)
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 984-3060
Facsimile: (813) 984-3070
athomas@tlolawlirm.com
rfuaate@tlolawfirm.com
10
Seth D. Berlin
Pro Hac Vice Number: 103440
Michael Sullivan
Michael Berry
Alia L. Smith
Paul J. Safier
1899 L Street, NW, Suite 200
Telephone: (202) 508-1122
Facsimile: (202) 861-9888
sberlin@lskslaw.coin
mberrv@lskslaw.com
msullivan@lskslaw.eom
asmith@lskslaw.com
psafier@lskslaw.com
Counsel for Gawker Media, LLC

and Nick Denton
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12th day of November, 2015,1 caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing to be served via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on the
following counsel of record:
David Houston, Esq.

Law Office of David Houston
kturkel@BajoCuva.com
Shane B. Vogt, Esq.
dhonslon@houslonallaw.coni
shane.vout@BaioCuva.com
432 Court Street

Reno, NV 89501
Tel: (775) 786-4188
Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, P.A.

100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813)443-2199
Fax: (813)443-2193
charder@HMAfirm.com
dmirell@HMAfirm.com
Jennifer McGrath
j mcgrath@HMAfirm.com
132 South Rodeo Drive, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2406
Tel: (424) 203-1600
Fax: (424) 203-1601
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Gress D. Thomas

Attorney
12
Filing #34351281 E-Filed 11/12/2015 09:30:21 AM
EXHIBIT 1
TO
SCOTT
KIDDER - 4/14/2015
Page 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
---------------------------------- x
TERRY GENE BOLLEA, professionally know as
HULK HOGAN,
-against-
Plaintiff,
Case No.
12012447 CI-011
HEATHER CLEM, GAWKER MEDIA, LLC AKA

GAWKER MEDIA; GAWKER MEDIA GROUP, INC.
AKA GAWKER MEDIA; et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------- x
April 14, 2015
1 0 : 1 2 a . m.
Videotaped Deposition of SCOTT KIDDER,

taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to Notice, at the
offices of Merrill Corporation, 1345 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, New York, before
William Visconti, a Shorthand Reporter and
Notary Public within and for the State of New
York.
Merrill Corporation
800-826-0277
www.deposition.com/southern-California.htm
SCOTT
KIDDER - 4/14/2015
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
A P P E A R A N C E S :
BY:
7
8
9
10
11
CHARLES J. HARDER, ESQ.

charder0hmafirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants
1899 L. Street, NW
BY:
ALIA L. SMITH, ESQ.

asmith01skslaw.com
12
13
14
15
ALSO PRESENT:
ADAM KOWALCZYK, Videographer
HEATHER L. DIETRICK, Gawker Media
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Merrill Corporation
800-826-0277
SCOTT
KIDDER - 4/14/2015
Page 144
SCOTT KIDDER
13:08:26
13:08:29
13:08:29
13:08:33
13:08:35
13:08:38
13:08:43
13:08:48
13:08:49
Q.
10
Who are the individuals who decided
13:08:56
11
the terms of the fee for the royalty agreement
13:09:03
12
between Gawker Media and Kinja?
13:09:05
13
A.
So again, what I can say there is
13:09:09
14
an outside company or law firm actually I know it
13:09:12
15
happened to me, Mayer Brown was hired and they did
13:09:14
16
a study to make sure that there were terms
13:09:17
17
appropriate for an arm's length transaction.
18
was handled by counsel and beyond that I don't
13:09:25
19
think there is anything unprivileged that I can
13:09:27
20
say.
13:09:29
21
Q.
So just so I understand.
It
13:09:22
The terms
13:09:34
22
of the royalty agreement between Gawker Media LLC
13:09:38
23
and Kinja KFT were determined by the law firm
13:09:42
24
Mayer Brown & Platt and not between principals or
13:09:50
25
officers at Gawker Media or Kinja?
Merrill Corporation
800-826-0277
www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
SCOTT
KIDDER - 4/14/2015
Page 145
1
2
SCOTT KIDDER
A.
13:09:51
No, that is not what I said.
13:09:53
said that in the interest of trying to give you
13:09:55
some information that
is that, that there was an
13:10:00
outside law firm did a study that said, hey, what
13:10:04
are some appropriate -- what is an appropriate
13 : 10 : 06
arrangement of what is an appropriate fee for an
13:10:08
arm's length transaction if you two weren't owned
13:10:11
by the same parent, is this sort of the thing that
13:10:15
would happen.
13:10:16
10
In terms of the signatories of the
11
13:10:18
12
agreement, in Kinja and Blogwire would be the then
13:10:23
13
managing director and in the U.S. it would have
13:10:25
14
been an authorized signatory.
13:10:27
15
the top of my head and who it was.
16
individuals that I have to imagine would have
13:10:32
17
actually agreed on the terms.
13:10:33
18
Q.
I don't know off

Those are the
I'm asking for your actual
13:10:30
13:10:37
19
knowledge not your assumption.
20
attorneys at the Mayer Brown law firm, what other
13:10:44
21
individuals were involved in determining the
13:10:48
22
license fee in the royalty agreement between
13:10:51
23
Gawker Media and Kinja KFT?
13:10:53
24
25
A.
Other than
Other than who the signatories are
which I just...
Merrill Corporation
800-826-0277
www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
13:10:40
13:10:59
SCOTT
KIDDER - 4/14/2015
Page 277
SCOTT KIDDER
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
1 7 :25:02
Here marks the end
1 7 :25:05
of file number 8 in the videotape deposition
1 7 :25:07
of Scott Kidder.
1 7 :25:11
the time is 5:25 p.m.
We are going off the record
(TIME NOTED:
1 7 :25:14
5:25 P.M.)
SCOTT KIDDER
10
11
Subscribed and sworn to before me
12
t h i s ______day o f _________ , 2015
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Merrill Corporation
800-826-0277
SCOTT
KIDDER - 4/14/2015
Page 278
1
2
3
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF NEW YORK
4
5
)
: ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
6
7
I, WILLIAM VISCONTI, a Shorthand Reporter
and Notary Public within and for the State of New
York, do hereby certify:
10
That SCOTT KIDDER, the witness whose
11
deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn
~l2
by me and that such deposition is a true record of
13
the testimony given by the witness.

I further certify that I am not related to
14
15
any of the parties to this action by blood or
1
A'
1b
marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the
17
outcome of this matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
18
19
hand this
22^
day of
2015.
20
21
22
23
WILLIAM VISCONTI
24
25
800-826-0277
Merrill Corporation
www.deposition.com/southern-calif ornia.htm
Filing #34351281 E-Filed 11/12/2015 09:30:21 AM
EXHIBIT 2
TO
CONFIDENTIAL

Plaintiff,
Case No.: 12012447-CI-011
vs.
HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA,
LLC aka GAWKER MEDIA; et al..
Defendants.
_______________ ________________
AFFIDAVIT OF NICK DENTON

I,
Nick Denton, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

1.
The statements made in this Affidavit are based on my personal knowledge.
2.
I submit this Affidavit in connection with courts ruling on June 29, 2015,
regarding additional financial worth discovery in response to plaintiffs Motion to Compel Full
and Complete Financial Worth Discovery (Plaintiffs Motion).
3.
I verify that I do not have insurance on my Manhattan condominium (other than
the coverage provided on the entire building generally by the condominium association). I verify
that I do not have insurance on the contents of my Manhattan condominium.
4.
I verify that the bank statements and related information being produced herewith
represent all the documents responsive to the requests numbered 7, 8, 23, 24, 28, and 29 in
Plaintiff s Motion that I have been able to access or otherwise locate after a diligent search. The
screenshot of text messages shows the current currency balances of my Citibank account.
CO NFIDENTIAL
5.
I verify that I do not have the documents memorializing the trust that is the
subject of request number 32 in Plaintiffs Motion. As I testified at my deposition, I am not a

trustee or beneficiary of the trust, nor do I control it.
dnton
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
The foregoing Affidavit of Nick Denton was SWORN TO AN D SUBSCRIBED before
CL-Jj.
more t h i s d a y of July, 2015.

Notary Public, State of New Y o r k ;
KAVITHA REDDY
NOTARYPUBLICSTATEOF NEWYORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
Filing #34351281 E-Filed 11/12/2015 09:30:21 AM
EXHIBIT 3
TO
1
CIVIL DIVISION
TERRY GENE BOLLEA,

p r o f e s s i o n a l l y known as HULK
HOGAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
12-012447-CI-011
VS .
LLC, a ka GAWKER MEDIA, et
a l .,
Defendants.
/
HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAMELA A.M. CAMPBELL

DATE:
June 29,
2015
TIME:
9 : 29 a.m.
PLACE:
P i n e l l a s County Court house

545 1 s t A v e n u e N o r t h
Third Floor
REPORTED BY:
Aa r o n T. P e r k i n s , RPR
Notary Public, S ta te of
F l o r i d a a t Large
Pages 1 t o
to
1 2 : 4 0 p. m.
151
APPEARANCES:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CHARLES J. HARDER, ESQUIRE

JENNIFER J. McGRATH, ESQUIRE
Harder, Mirell & Abrams, LLP
1925 Century Park East
Suite 800
Los Angeles, California 90067
and
KENNETH G. TURKEL, ESQUIRE
SHANE B. VOGT, ESQUIRE
Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, P.A.
100 North Tampa Street
Suite 1900
12
13
14
15
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
APPEARANCES CONTINUED AS FOLLOWS:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
GREGG D. THOMAS, ESQUIRE

Thomas & LoCicero, PL
601 South Boulevard
and
SETH D. BERLIN, ESQUIRE
MICHAEL D. SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE
1899 L Street, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
and
MICHAEL BERRY, ESQ U IR E
PAUL J . S A F IE R , ESQ U IR E

1760 Market Street
Suite 1001
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
15
16
Attorneys for Defendant Gawker Media, LLC,

et al.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ALSO PRESENT:
Heather L. Dietrick,
President and General counsel for The Gawker
Media Group
Alison Steele, Esquire
Rahdert, Steele & Reynolds, P.A.
535 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Anna M. Phillips, Tampa Bay Times
24
25
135
1
luxury car.
something else.
into another bank account that we don't know
about.
Maybe he actually went out and bought
THE COURT:
Maybe he transferred that money
So at this point I'm going to
deny it.
the eve of the trial.
you wouldn't have been entitled to it, but it's
too late at this point.
10
I just think that is a lot to produce on
All right.
Otherwise, I'm not saying
So No. 32, Mr. Denton's
11
irrevocable family trust documents, any additional
12
argument?
13
14
MR. BERLIN:
These aren't Mr. Denton's
documents.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. BERLIN:
I will grant it.

Well, I don't know that he has
17
any documents to give. Your Honor, because he's
18
not the trustee; he's not the beneficiary.
19
20
21
22
THE COURT:
Somewhere along the way, he would
have a record if it's his.

MR. BERLIN:
It's not his.
That's what I'm
saying.
23
THE COURT:
Well, see what you produce, then.
24
All right.
Reports and notes of pitch
25
meetings and meetings held with prospective
139
1
the written valuation, it was explored in the
financing.
provided.
kind of presentation. Power Point presentation,
whatever kind of presentation materials there
were, provide it, presentation materials to be
provided.
8
9
I denied that, that it's already been

I will just say this.
MR. BERLIN:
If there is some
Your Honor, it's my
understanding, because we have already asked YAC
10
that question, that we have an answer to that, but
11
I'm happy to go back and look at it some more.
12
13
THE COURT:
Okay.
I think that's it other
than the potential further depositions, right?
14
MR. VOGT:
Yes, Your Honor.
15
THE COURT:
And so I think at this point in
16
time, we're done with depositions.
So it looks
17
like you-all were doing lots of depositions.
18
think it was last week when I looked at the
19
docket.
20
very hard, and I really appreciate you-all working
21
really hard.
22
too, so let's hopefully get some rest on that
23
aspect of it.
I know that you-all have been working
But I think you-all need some sleep
24
Okay.
So additionally for today?
25
MR. BERLIN:
Your Honor, would you like for
151
1
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3
4
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
5
6
7
8
I, Aaron T. Perkins, Registered Professional

Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did
stenographically report the above hearing and that
the transcript is a true and complete record of my
stenographic notes.
10
11
12
13
14
I further certify that I am not a relative,

employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the
parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of
the parties' attorney or counsel connected with
the action, nor am I financially interested in the
action.
15
16
Dated this 29th day of June, 2015.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Aaron T. Perkins, RPR
24
25
Filing #34351281 E-Filed 11/12/2015 09:30:21 AM
EXHIBIT 4
TO
Filing # 26813568 E-Filed 05/01/2015 05:41:12 PM

Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 12012447CI-011

GAWKER MEDIA,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CONCERNING NET WORTH
TO DEFENDANT NICK DENTON
Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.350, Plaintiff Terry Gene Bollea,
professionally known as Hulk Hogan (PLAINTIFF), hereby requests that Defendant Nick
Denton produce for inspection and copying each of the documents or categories of documents
described hereafter at the law offices of Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, P.A., 100 North Tampa
Street, Suite 1900, Tampa, Florida 33602. Pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.350, you are required to produce the documents requested below, numbered 1
through 92 within thirty days from the certificate of service.
33.
For the time period beginning January 1,2011, to the time of the response to this
Request, any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO or reflecting the existence or location of any

pensions, profit sharing, annuities or trusts in which YOU have any interest.
34.
For the time period beginning January 1, 2011, to the time of the response to this
Request, any and all DOCUMENTS showing any and all ownership and/or other interests YOU
hold, for yourself personally and/or on behalf of GAWKER, KINJA or GMGI, in real estate
(including both ownership and leasehold interests), any interests in other businesses, and/or any
other form of investment, including without limitation DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the fair
value and/or fair market value or worth of any and all such interests.
35.
All DOCUMENTS REFERRING or RELATING TO any real property leased to
or from YOU (individually, jointly, or otherwise), for yourself personally and/or on behalf of
GAWKER, KINJA or GMGI, during any part of the period of January 1, 2011 to the time of the
response of this Request, including DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the terms of all such
leases, the location of the property(ies), the amount of rent paid, the owner of the property(ies)
and the duration of the lease(s).
36.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any and all ownership interests YOU hold
(individually, jointly, or otherwise, for yourself personally and/or on behalf of GAWKER,

KINJA or GMGI) in any and all real property from January 1, 2011 to the time of the response to
this Request, including but not limited to, copies of any and all titles and/or deeds regarding such
real property, and all DOCUMENTS stating and/or estimating the fair value and/or fair market
value of any and all such real property.
37.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show whether any real property owned by YOU
(either individually, jointly, or otherwise, for yourself personally and/or on behalf of GAWKER,
11
42.
Copies of all trusts in which YOU, yourself personally and/or on behalf of
GAWKER, KINJA or GMGI, are or were the grantor, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or in which
YOU have or had any interest, legal or equitable, at any time from January 1, 2011, until the time
of the response to the Request.
43.
Copies of any testamentary documents which may govern the disposition of
YOUR assets upon YOUR demise including, without limitation, wills and testamentary trusts.
44.
Copies of any prenuptial agreements to which YOU are a party.
45.
Copies of any currency, stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS or items YOU
keep in a safe or similar apparatus, regardless of the location of such safe or apparatus for
yourself personally and/or on behalf of GAWKER, KINJA or GMGI.
46.
All DOCUMENTS showing the source of funds YOU have used to pay any
monthly expenses since January 1, 2011.

47.
All DOCUMENTS showing any on-line auctions or other purchases or sales of
any property valued at more than $1,000 in which YOU have participated since 2011.
48.
Request, all DOCUMENTS REFERRING or RELATING TO the finances of GAWKER,

including without limitation all articles (print media and/or online), emails, internal memos,
monthly reports, financial reports and/or financial statements.
49.
Request, all DOCUMENTS REFERRING or RELATING TO the revenue streams and/or

income of GAWKER, including without limitation all articles (print media and/or online),
emails, internal memos, monthly reports, financial reports and/or financial statements.
13
91.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all assets and/or activities of GAWKER that
provided any benefit to YOU, KINJA and/or GMGI at any time from January 1, 2011 to present.
92.
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all assets and/or activities of GMGI that
provided any benefit to YOU, KINJA and/or GAWKER at any time from January 1, 2011 to
present.
DATED: May 1,2015

/s/ Kenneth G. Turkel_____________
Kenneth G. Turkel
Shane B. Vogt
Tel: (813)443-2199
Fax: (813) 443-2193
Email: kturkel@baiocuva.com
Email: svogt@bajocuva.com
-andCharles J. Harder, Esq.
PHVNo. 102333
PHVNo. 109885
Sarah E. Luppen, Esq.
PHVNo. 113729
Tel: (424) 203-1600
Fax: (424) 203-1601
Email: charder@limafirm.com
Email: d m irc11@hma II rm.com
Email: sluppen@hinafirin.com
21
Filing # 34453809 E-Filed 11/13/2015 05:20:13 PM
EXHIBIT A
(to Plaintiffs Second Amended Notice of Hearing)
***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 11/17/2015 01:49:12 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
Tampa
601 South Boulevard, Tampa. FL 33606
ph 813-984-3060 fax 613-384-3070 toll free 866-395-7100
h i, t s a a. c v _____ __ __
Lo [ C E
South Florida
401 SE 12th Street. Sle 300. Fort Lauderdale, FL 3331c
ph 954-703-3416 fax 954-400-5415
8461 Lake Worth Roaa, St=. 114, Lake Wortti, FL 33467
ph 561-34C-1433 fax 561-340-1432
4rrov [blavhpjt,com
Gregg D. Tliomas
Direct Dial: (813) 984-3066
gthomas@tlolawfirm .com
Reply to: Tampa
June 26, 2015

VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Pamela A.M. Campbell
Sixth Judicial Circuit
St, Petersburg Judicial Building
545 First Avenue N., Room 300
St, Petersburg, FL 33701
Re:
Terry Gene Bollea v. Gawker Media, I.LC, et al.

Case No.: S:12-cv-02348-JL)W-TBM
Deai- Judge Campbell:

Enclosed for your review, in advance of Mondays hearing, is the Publisher Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Additional Financial Worth Discovery, plus exhibits.
(Plaintiffs motion was filed Monday afternoon, June 22, 2015.) Also enclosed is a binder
containing much of the financial worth discovery that the Publisher Defendants have provided in
this case.
Thank \ou for vour attention.
Sinecrelv.
THOMAS & LOCJC.ERO PL
</
xfn
Gregg D. Thomas
Enclosures
cc:
Counsel of Records (cover letter and binder index only)

Plaintiff.
Case No.: 12012447-CI-011
vs.
I.LC aka GAWKER MEDIA; et aL
Defendants.
THE P U B L IS H E R DEFENDANTS F IN A N C IA L WORTH DISCLOSURES

Tab
D escription
Gawkers income statements for every year since 2011, plus for the
period January through April 2015
[G aw ker IS323, 28223-28224)
Gawkers balance sheets for every year since 2011, plus for the period
January through April 2015
[G im W r 1432, 1-133, 1832 0 ,2 8 2 2 5 -2 8 2 2 7 )
Gawker's statements of cash flow for every year since 2011, plus for the
period January through April 2015
(Curate 2 8 2 2 3 - 2 8 2 3 3 ]
oj
Gawker's statement of accounts receivable

[U.iAkii 2v"3-l|
All of Gau ker's federal tax returns since 2<>11
Alt ofNiek Deatons federal tax returns since 2011

IDomea0(Tv-U'T 3X1-?77J
All of AJ. DaulerioA available federal tax returns since 2011

[AJD0 3 9 - S S J
All available W2 forms for Nick Denton and A.J. Daulerio since 2011
[ G r a k e r 2850I-2S 5I 1]
i
i
Valuation reports of Gawker Media Group, Inc. (GMGI"), by The

Brenner Group, from 2012. 2013. and 2014, plus exhibits
[D e m o n 1 0 4 -3 2 0 ]
Financial statements of GMGI audited and/or reviewed by CPA firm of

Citrin Cooperman for 2011,2012 and 2013
10
(G a w k e r 2 4 3 4 8 -2 4 3 S 8 ]
Capitalization table showing ownership interests in GMGI

[D em o n
11
104]
Capitalization table showing ownership interests in RGFree, Inc., the

start-up web publishing company recently founded by AJ, Daulerio
12
[A JD 069]
Gawkers leases
13
IG a w k e r 2 8 2 3 8 - 2 8 4 8 0 ]
Independent appraisal ofNick Dentons condominium
14
| D e m o n 0 2 9 -6 7 ]
Mortgage statement for Nick Denton

[D em o n 0 0 7 )
15
Bank statements f o r each o f the Publisher Defendants (most recent

statements, plus end-of-year account statements for each year available
back to 2011)
[ G a w k e r 2 8 6 5 7 - 2 8 7 4 1 ] [ D e n t o n 01 6 - 0 2 S ] [ A J D 5 6 - 6 0 . 6 6 - 6 8 J
16
Stock certificates showing investments

[Gawker 2 8 7 5 6 - 2 8 7 5 9 ] |A J D 0 6 I - 6 5 J
17
Bank statements showing payments between Gawker and Kinja, KFT
18
IG a w k e r 243S 9 - 24378]
Gaw'kers operating agreement

F G .m k e r
2S4S7J
Gawker's promissory notes and loan statement

to k c r:^ :
19
:o

Gawker Financial Worth Arguments &amp; Exhibits

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Gawker Financial Worth Arguments &amp; Exhibits

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Case No. 12012447CI-011

HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA, LLC

PLAINTIFF TERRY BOLLEAS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE PRODUCTION

A 2014 discovery request specifically requested transfer pricing studies, and

Gawker responded that no non-privileged documents exist. Gawker Defendants purposely

(known as the control premium).

THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY SHOULD BE PRODUCED.

THE TRUST DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRODUCED.

A MONETARY SANCTION SHOULD ALSO BE ASSESSED AGAINST

ADDITIONAL NET WORTH DEPOSITIONS

Gregg D. Thomas, Esquire

David R. Houston, Esquire

Seth D. Berlin, Esquire

Michael Berry, Esquire

Attorneys for Intervenors, First Look Media,

Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

TERRY GENE BOLLEA professionally

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES J. HARDER

I am a resident of Los Angeles, California over the age of 18 years. I am an

the hearing on April 22, 2015.

the hearing on May 29, 2015.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the Courts June 19, 2015 Order.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is the Courts July 20,2015 Order

Media LLCs Privilege Log, produced on March 28, 2014.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 are true and correct copies of correspondence

between the parties.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a copy of The Gospel According to Nick Denton -

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a copy of Gawker Media Generated $45 Million in

My partner Jennifer McGrath and my associate Dilan Esper worked on reviewing

the results obtained.

lay of October, 2015.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this __ day of

who has produced

(type of I.D.) as identification (check one).

CALIFORNIA JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT

GOVERNMENT CODE 8202

C ^ e e Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below)

Signature of Document Signer No. 1

Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any)

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me

' _ ***'** '*j X .

/Signatu^^df Notary Public

Number of Pages:______Signer(s) Other Than Named A bove:________________________ ____________

Filing # 33069097 E-Filed 10/09/2015 03:26:04 PM

TERRY GENE BOLLEA, professionally

HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAMELA CAMPBELL

April 22, 2015

1:30 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

Pinellas Count Courthouse

Susan C. Riesdorph, RPR, CRR

Riesdorph Reporting Group, Inc. (813) 222-8963

already been placed before Judge Case?

Did we ever tee up the

No, we did not, because they

went up to the court of appeal with the issue.

What about the financial issues,

financial net worth issues?

I'll let Charles speak to that.

I think they've litigated some of those on

Well, we've done some discovery

of financial, but it wasn't in conjunction with

Gawker Financial Worth Arguments & Exhibits

Gawker Financial Worth Arguments & Exhibits

' _ ' 'j X .

Number of Pages:Signer(s) Other Than Named A bove:______